NYRA: Spitzer nod on 30 yr renewal

[DJK]

Regarding some of those remarks about Jan Rushton, may I gently wag my librarian's finger and remind the gentlemen that there are ladies present? Sigh. Tsk, tsk.

(1) I never listen to her as I can't hear her while I'm leaning on the paddock fence.

(2) I spent 10 minutes explaining to a guy a couple of weeks ago who she was and why she was wearing that hat/construction/sculpture. (He quite liked my understated, classic hat.)

[reese]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

It's comments like these that illustrate your ignorance of how the racing industry works.

So true. Benevolous haunts several racing forums spewing bs and fallacious comments masquerading as "facts".

I wouldn't waste time "trying to teach a pig to sing"

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Benevolus

This was a no-brainer. It was all about the governor getting rights to $1 BILLION dollars worth of land. Now you can pretty much kiss Aqueduct goodbye. It will be sold to a Spitzer friend for real estate development. Spitzer's family made it's fortune in the real estate game.

NYRA does a good job but the reality is that taxpayers made a loan to them and NYRA is basically defaulting on the loan. So the governor's friends get rich, NYRA once again has no accountability, and the taxpayer gets screwed.

Gotta love NY.

NYRA vice chairman Jim Heffernan said the end of the land-claims dispute with the state means NYRA is relinquishing its ownership in about $1-billion worth of property at the three tracks. In return, the state is forgiving about $130 million NYRA owes it, including about $30 million provided over the past year.

This is not a no brainer and is a very myopic view of a very complex situation. It also doesn't address a great deal of what is most beneficial to the industry, and in reality, the taxpayers of NY. If the relinquishing of any claim to the land is part of the deal, and the land reverts back to the State -- does that not provide benefits to the taxpayers of NY?

In addition, does anyone truly believe that a sweetheart deal is going to take place on the sale of (a part of) the land? I would think that this would be one of the most scrutinized deals in Spitzer's entire tenure in office. It would also have to be reviewed thoroughly and approved by multiple parties (the different components and parties of the legislature). We all know that political deals take place and we've all heard about the scandals, however, with the scrutiny surrounding this situation and any potential deal, I don't think you are going to see a BS/sweetheart deal.

Anyone who buys land like this will get more benefits -- not on the purchase price -- but on the back-end; tax breaks, abatements, re-development benefits, and/or perhaps loans, government money, etc. This would happen whether it's a friend of Spitzer's or not. That happens everyday, in many cities across the US. I would also think the RFP process would be iron-clad, however I am sure the critics would find fault regardless of the process.

It is generally accepted by experts within the industry that NYRA is most qualified to run the franchise and that the current model needs to be fixed. Why would NYRA be willing to give up their claim to the land? A billion dollars? Think about this. Nobody -- and I mean nobody -- was looking to get the franchise before the VLT legislation was approved.

Eric