Beware: Six Constitutional Amendments in November 5th Election

There are six (6) constitutional amendments being presented to New York State voters in the upcoming November 5th elections. Many people we speak to are unaware that there are any constitutional amendments being offered for a vote, let alone six of them. These are not referendums as often referred to by Mr Feiner regarding the 715 Dobbs Ferry Road property that are conveniently worded for a predestined outcome. These are literal changes that will be made to the NYS Constitution and as such, we hope that voters and the electorate in general take these very seriously. They are listed below.

1) Whether to allow up to seven casinos to be built in New York. Currently, non-Native American casinos are unconstitutional, and this amendment would permit the Legislature to approve up to seven new casinos. Currently, the NYS Constitution prohibits gambling, except for (1) parimutuel wagering and horse racing; (2) State lotteries; (3) bingo conducted by certain charitable, non-profit and religious organizations; and (4) games of chance conducted by these same charitable, non-profit, and religious organizations. This proposal would amend the constitution to authorize casino gambling within the state, allowing for no more than seven casinos.

Pros: Upstate economic infusion of jobs, tourism, taxes, limit of 7 casinos in the amendment.
Cons: Increased crime/prostitution/flimflams/loan sharking/drugs, gambling addiction, police costs, little or no real estate improvements as witnessed in the decline of Atlantic City’s blight. There is no legislation, proposals or information other than what the casino industry has presented. There are no details of what would be done and where. The dollar amounts of revenue being proposed include Indian casinos revenue. Nor are the costs to develop these casinos included which would reduce the income projections.

2) Additional Civil Service Credit for Veterans with Disabilities Certified Post-Appointment. The proposed amendment basically allows veterans who serve in civil service positions additional civil service credit for subsequent appointments or promotions.

Pros: It would benefit individuals who, through no fault of their own, were not classified as a veteran with disabilities at the time of their first civil service appointment.
Cons: While we appreciate our veterans, this will increase the cost to taxpayers in civil service salaries. It retroactively removes restrictions to apply for special credits that may have expired or not been applied for.

3) Exclusion of Indebtedness Contracted for Sewage Facilities. The proposed amendment to Article 8, section 5 of the Constitution would extend for ten years, until January 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. Basically, it allows counties, cities, towns, and villages the ability to exclude sewage facility work from being counted as debt.

Pros: The concerns expressed in 1963 when this was initiated with a ten-year cap are still the same today.
Cons: Continue to allow politicians to kick the can down the road for another 10 years, as they have done for the last 40 years. The concerns may be the same but perhaps 40 years was enough time to deal with it.

4) Settling Disputed Title in the Forest Preserve. The proposed amendment to section 1 of article J4 of the Constitution would authorize the Legislature to settle longstanding disputes between the State and private entities over certain parcels of land within the forest preserve in the town of Long Lake, Hamilton County.

Pros: The “Forever Wild” clause of the NYS Constitution forbids the lease, sale, exchange or taking of any forest preserve land. The proposed amendment would allow the legislature to settle 100-year-old disputes between the State and private parties over ownership of certain parcels of land located in the forest preserve, in the town of Long Lake, Hamilton County, by giving up the State's claim to disputed parcels. In exchange for giving up its claim to disputed parcels, the State would get land to be incorporated into the forest preserves that would benefit the forest preserve more than the disputed parcels currently do.
Cons: The statewide vote is violating Home Rule for Long Lake, Hamilton County, by having the entire state decide the fate of one region. We question whether this needs to be a constitutional change or can be addressed by a law from the legislature or a decision from the judicial system.

5) In Relation to a Land Exchange in the State Forest Preserve with NYCO Minerals. Inc. 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 mining the land. In exchange, the 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. The back story here is that NYCO Minerals is a producer and supplier of wollastonite (calcium metasilicate), which is a rare, white mineral having commercial application as a reinforcement or additive in ceramics, paints, plastics, friction products and various building products. The Lewis mine produces 60,000 tons of wollastonite annually. NYCO Minerals has indicated that its mine is approaching the end of its pit life because the remainder of the wollastonite vein extends onto adjacent forest preserve land.

Pros: The land swap would preserve jobs in, and preserve a large company/employer in Essex County; provide new access to mountain peaks and trout streams; allow the state to acquire a higher quality of land than it would be trading to NYCO Minerals.
Cons: It is not vital to NYCO Minerals survival; it would diminish the “Forever Wild” clause of the NYS Constitution; it would be giving up forest preserve land to a commercial company. There are also no contracts and only talk of a 1500 acre parcel swap.

6) Increasing Age until which Certain State Judges Can Serve. 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 in order to complete the term to which that Judge was appointed. Basically, a judge could sit on the bench until age 80 depending on their competency.

Pros: The State Judiciary system would benefit from the experienced judges otherwise lost to mandatory retirement; longer and healthier lifespans enable us to have older and equally capable performance from older judges. The retirement age was adopted when living longer wasn’t as viable.
Cons: Keeping older judges blocks newer judges from moving into those positions at the higher levels. Not passing this forces retirement under the guise of enhancing diversity. Age should not be a penalizing factor of employment for judgeships.

ABG is not telling you how to vote but will detail our thoughts for each issue. 1) At first glance the construction of casinos upstate may seem like a good thing and we’re pretty sure it will pass. However, there are too many questions and bad examples of what happens to casino-laden areas. And, this is New York – predestined to experience the worst of what can go wrong with any project. While many will say it doesn’t affect us because its an upstate issue, we know from experience that it will affect us financially if no other way. We suggest voting no. 2) Additional civil service credits may be a reasonable idea, however, we cannot complain about increased spending and out of control salaries and and pensions and then say yes to this. We suggest voting no. 3) Exclusion of indebtedness is part of what’s wrong with how we as an electorate, and our representatives with our blessing (votes), continue to kick the can down the road. It’s time to stop doing this. Forty years should have been enough time to address any water issues we may have. We suggest voting no. 4 & 5) While we disagree with the state cavalierly making constitutional changes to address land use and land use rights, we particularly disagree with constitutional changes to benefit a commercial entity. We suggest voting no. 6) We believe in and appreciate our seniors, their abilities and knowledge and think it may be wasteful to force their retirement. This change to extend the age limit makes sense and we can support it assuming measures are put in place to evaluate the competency of aging judges.

In the end, our votes will all add up. As we have seen in Town of Greenburgh’s Democratic Primary election, turnout is typically low and voters tend to vote with whomever has the loudest voice. The loudest voice is not necessarily the most honest or sincerest voice. Mr Feiner has proven this to us time and again. But since most voters only read the headline and not the entire story, or tend to believe what they hear, these changes will probably go through. It would be nice if we had representatives who held regular town hall meetings and explained in detail the pros and cons of an issue and listened to our input. New York state doesn’t have that. We used to have three men in a room, which has grown to four men in a room, whose personal interests trump the public’s interests.

Regardless of how you vote, get the facts, read, learn, listen and be critical of what’s presented before you go to your polling location and vote in our 1800’s-style “progressive” voting booth – another example of NYS control gone bad. Please, at least go vote!