Text Us: #30930
Phone: (800) 616 WBEN
Business: (716) 843-0600
"Dyster: Might Not Respond To Casino Fire"
Is Not Available At This Time.
09/12/2012 9:11AM
Dyster: Might Not Respond To Casino Fire
Please enter your comments below.
09/12/2012 1:06PM
Must want to get sued
First time someone is injured or dies due to the FD not responding there would be lawsuits left and right
09/12/2012 4:09PM
What an idiot!
Dyster needs to read the Nation-State Gaming Compact(available online) before he opens his mouth. First of all the Senecas owe nothing to the city and never did. Under the terms of the compact the Senecas pay the STATE a specified % of their Class III gaming gross. The state in turn pays out a % of that revenue to the Falls, Buffalo and Salamanca; the Senecas have nothing to do with how much each location receives. There is no "direct pay" (to the cities) provision in the compact as far as I can see. The "quid pro quo" in the compact was that the state turned over its Class III gaming rights EXCLUSIVELY to the Seneca Gaming Corp in exchange for the previously mentioned cut of the Class III take at the Indian casinos. The compact specifies that, should the state violate its exclusivity grant, the state's right to receive and the Senecas obligation to pay the "contribution" (aka "the cut") shall cease; pending the outcome of the resolution process specified in the compact. Unfortunately the state has failed to actively participate in that process FOR THREE YEARS! Here's maybe why. Under that portion of the compact labeled "PARTY DISPUTE RESOLUTION, REMEDIES"; "The arbitrators shall EXEMPT the Nation from payment of the State Contribution for any breach of the State's commitments to EXCLUSIVITY as set forth in Paragraph 12(a)." In other words, should negotiations fail, and the dispute process advance to arbitration (as is specified in the compact), a finding under arbitration that the state violated its exclusivity promise could have only one outcome; that the state would forfeit its contractual % of the Class III gross. Of course the money that the cities would have subsequently received from the state would disappear too. If the Senecas should elect to directly pay the cities the money that the state would normally forward to them (that could open a can of worms contractually speaking), who would be responsible to pay back the Senecas should an arbitrator ultimately rule that the state violated its exclusivity grant and thus was owed NOTHING from the Seneca Gaming Corp? I doubt that an otherwise broke city could round up the $60 million needed to be returned to the Senecas!
Title :
Comment :