"Casino opponents have three main arguments to make. The moral and economic arguments indeed remain strong, but no longer as timely as they would have been before the state compact. The remaining argument is legal, concerning the procedures followed and the authority to designate lands acquired through the Seneca settlement fund as sovereign - and thus state bans on casino development. That issue remains in court.

Until that is decided - and afterward, if the deal is upheld - city officials are responsible for making this project as good as it can be for Buffalo, and the Senecas have a community responsibility to do the same. Seneca officials seem satisfied that their sovereignty and economic interests have been protected and Brown, who has never viewed the casino as a silver bullet for the city's economy, feels comfortable that the written agreement is legally binding in the areas important to the city and provides more protections than the state compact.

But Buffalo needs even more protection, and that protection should come in financial form from the state, which started this process that could drain city resources. New York should give Buffalo the state's full 25 percent share slot machine revenues it stands to receive, instead of the approximately 6 percent the city is slated to receive. The state's unearned take would be a drop in the state's huge overall revenue stream, but the money could be crucial to Buffalo in helping offset its security, service and social costs."

Get the Story:
Editorial: Casino takes shape (The Buffalo News 10/14)