Editorial: Siting casinos statewide is best way for New York to hit jackpot

In a state with a lottery, Indian casinos, "racinos," horse tracks, off-track betting parlors and online wagering, the betting has already closed on whether to legalize gambling.

Better to consider a new proposition: How do we foster gaming and oversight in New York that will create jobs, spur economic growth, increase tax revenue and generate even more dollars from tourists. And how do we do this in a way that isn't shot through with corruption?

The winning strategy: very carefully, fairly quickly, statewide and without unrealistically high expectations.

Gambling is not a panacea. It never provides as much economic development as proponents promise. But there is a place in our state's gambling repertoire for full casinos that aren't owned by Native American tribes.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's push for a constitutional amendment to "legalize" gambling by approving up to seven non-Indian casino licenses has passed the legislature once, and must pass it again before voters get to weigh in on a ballot referendum, either this year or next. The prospect of big dollars is, slowly but surely, working gambling concerns and politicians into a frenzy as they try to further their interests and protect their turf.

Cuomo is as game as ever to kill multiple birds with limited stones. He's using the threat of nearby competition to induce three casino-owning Indian tribes upstate into paying the state what's owed for cigarette taxes and gambling revenues, a decades-long struggle. In exchange for huge noncompetitive buffer zones, the St. Regis Mohawks and Oneida Indian Nation have come to terms, and the Seneca Nation may not be far behind.

In the northeast -- with established gaming options from Atlantic City to the Resorts World Racino at Aqueduct to Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods in Connecticut to Parx in Pennsylvania -- the total gambling pie is maxed out. Revenue can only grow by attracting the dollars of visitors from outside our region and nation. We can only achieve that by building casinos in or near New York City, which saw 55 million visitors last year. A strong plan would assure that New York gets a bigger slice of the existing pool of dollars, increases that pie, and does so before new casinos planned in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts establish toeholds and customer bases.

But Cuomo originally touted his casino plan as primarily a driver of upstate development. He wanted three casinos upstate only, and argued that any downstate would suck customers away from needier areas. That approach places too much confidence in the development gaming could bring those regions, whose problems run deep. It also fails to capture visitors to the city: tourists, international high rollers in for a weekend, and businessmen in town for 36 hours, who would eagerly spend time at a casino in or near the city but never travel to Poughkeepsie to toss dice and turn cards.

The chances that any final casino bill gets approved by the legislature are even money, but Cuomo's current approach may be hurting the odds. Lawmakers denied gaming in their regions, or promised the chance only in a "later phase," would have reason to oppose the constitutional amendment. So would voters. Some oppose gambling and may be swayed by a barrage of negative advertising from already-established gambling interests fearful of new players. Others want more gambling options, but want them near home.

This plan can survive the disapproval of gambling opponents, but it can't survive the disapproval of gambling supporters. A plan that places no casinos downstate may anger gamblers in a region that makes up about 70 percent of the state's voters.

Beyond that, the phased approach may not get the best deal possible for upstate. Industry experts argue that development prospects far from the city are limited, and proposed casinos there are likely to be bare bones. But allowing major casino corporations to create joint bids for both downstate and upstate locations may lead to far more ambitious development plans in the Catskills, where a year-round destination resort makes the most sense. A utilitarian casino won't do much for a depressed region, but add indoor water parks, skiing and ice skating, Broadway-style shows and a world-class spa, and everyone stands a chance to win a little bigger.

Along with sensible plans to site full casinos in the city, suburbs or at existing racinos, some less attractive ideas have also surfaced. One bill to allow video lottery terminals at Suffolk and Nassau Off-Track Betting locations is a desperate attempt to revive an obsolete brand. It's just a shakedown by visionless local pols to get something in return for their votes for the amendment. Not only is it a bad gambling strategy overall, why should our legislative delegation settle for so little?

So how does everyone win? Cuomo has to deal.

There's no need to announce the exact locations of the casinos or their operators before legislators vote and the amendment goes on the ballot. But we do need to know the regions. And the enabling legislation that will be joined with the constitutional amendment must detail a selection process that is totally independent and insulated from those who would be tempted by the bags of money that will be thrown around Albany to gain favor.

Cuomo has the house advantage as he tries to fully legalize casino gambling in New York. But he has to play his cards smart and bold if he wants to make the state a big winner.