New York Closes 2023 Assembly with Seneca Gaming Compact Pending

The 2023 New York Assembly has concluded without a final verdict on renewing the Seneca Nation gaming compact. This new compact sailed through the State Senate earlier in June, but it hit a bump after reaching the Assembly when Speaker Carl Heastie ruled not to move forward with a vote. The Assembly met during a special overtime session to wrap up some ‘unfinished business,’ which included possible action on the Seneca gaming compact.

Assembly Speaker Heastie clarified that the gaming compact wouldn’t be taken to a vote until there was a revised proposal to address several concerns raised during deliberation. Some of the misgivings include the tribe’s plan to add a new casino to the deal, a proposition that received a lot of backlash, especially from Rochester lawmakers. This came just days after the Seneca Nation and state officials had notified the public of a preliminary deal for a new gaming compact.

Communication Over Casino in Rochester “Wasn’t Clear”

The Seneca Nation of Indians already owns and runs three casinos in Salamanca, Niagara, and Buffalo Creek. While compact negotiations have been ongoing for years, it was only recently that new details regarding the potential construction of a new Seneca casino in Rochester surfaced. The Senate approved the compact’s ‘language.’ Still, after discussions between NY’s Assembly and the tribe in question, it was confirmed that the Senecas intended to construct a new casino in the Rochester area.

This discovery resulted in a series of protests from concerned parties, including social justice advocates. For instance, social justice lobbyists accused the governor’s office of conducting closed-door negotiations with the Senecas without being transparent to the public. Rochester’s Majority Delegation was present at the meeting and immediately protested the compact, citing severe repercussions for the Rochester community. Assemblyman Harry Bronson, the Rochester delegation chair, said in part:

Quote

“We were able to confirm that the language they’ve been using indeed was the Rochester market, which was defined as Monroe County…What does that mean to our families? What does that mean to the gaming industry here? What impact will it have on the existing casinos? And what impact will have on the thousands of workers who are currently working there who are union workers getting good pay with benefits?”

Bronson’s disquiet was echoed by other members of the Rochester Delegation, who stated they were blindsided about the details of the proposed compact – especially ones about allowing another Seneca casino in their front yard. The delegation voiced their frustrations on being left out of the initial discussions and only being roped in at the eleventh hour.

Moreover, one recurrent concern Rochester lawmakers raised is the market saturation issue if such a compact came into effect. As such, most Rochester legislators strongly opposed it, pointing out that adding one more facility to the existing ten within a 100-mile radius would lead to job losses and reduced revenue for the other operators. Others have asserted that having a new casino will drive residents into gambling addiction while diverting money away from more productive businesses, eventually taking a toll on the city’s economy.

Rochester Mayor Malik Evans also added to the discussion, saying:

Quote

“There are already numerous casinos in the Rochester area. My focus remains on meaningful opportunities that create a vibrant Rochester economy focused on the jobs of the 21st Century.”

A Fair Deal For All?

Following the opposition from Rochester leaders to the gaming compact, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie reported that the compact would not be moving forward. It was therefore put on hold until the concerns from the Monroe County delegation were fully addressed. Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough time to respond or amend the compact before the 2023 legislative session closed.

In a tweet earlier last week, Heastie reported:

Quote

“I believe the Seneca Nation deserves a fair deal. However, the sentiment of the Assembly’s Monroe County delegation, coupled with the potential loss of union jobs, is concerning, and we cannot move forward with a vote on the compact at this time.”

The Seneca Nation has since responded to the outcome, condemning the governor’s office and accusing her administration of not revealing the terms of the compact to the Rochester leaders. Interestingly, Governor Hochul has since recused herself from the process because her husband, former US Attorney William Hochul, now works for Delaware North, a Seneca Casino competitor.

However, since the governor is the only one who can sign off on any possible contract, Seneca Nation’s President Rickey Armstrong stated that Delaware North still stood to benefit. Armstrong even accused Finger Lakes Gaming of being behind the opposition to building a casino in Rochester. The governor has appointed two aides to deliberate on negotiations on her behalf.

Julie Wood, the Communications Director to Governor Honhul, has since admitted that the bottom line is to reach ‘an agreement that works for all parties.’ Wood added that:

Quote

“While we have engaged in productive discussions with the Seneca Nation recently, we were unable to reach a final agreement, and the Assembly did not pass the authorizing legislation,”

Current Tribal-State Gaming Compact Almost Expiring

The road to formulating a new tribal-state compact has not been an easy one. There has been a lot of friction between the gubernatorial administrations and the Seneca Nations. For example, in 2017, as a protest, the tribe ceased rendering gaming revenue to the State, prompting drastic measures by Hohul’s administration. The protest saw the State freeze the tribe’s finances, forcing them to comply.

New York’s proposed 20-year compact would have seen the tribe pay 19.5% in gaming revenue to the State on condition that a new casino would be opened. The Seneca tribe is pushing for approval of the tribal-state gaming compact before the current one expires, suggesting that stalling further is ‘neither a reasonable nor acceptable solution.’