With all the campaign yard signs and personalities in the current Rockland County election, it might be very easy to miss another important feature of Tuesday’s ballot — six proposed NY State constitutional amendments.
The usual rule of thumb on constitutional amendments proposed is to be wary, very wary. Some group or business association has spent shiny pennies to help wind a proposal through the state legislature, past the governor’s desk and onto the ballet. Bet on it.
Proposal One — Authorizing Casino Gaming. The state written abstract for this amendment makes the proposal sound like a community investment project when in fact the whole enterprise is about building seven casinos that will act as hoovering money magnets.
Abstract: The purpose of the proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the Constitution is to allow the Legislature to authorize and regulate up to seven casinos for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated.
The mantra related to expanding New York gaming appears to be it will provide enormous opportunities for tourism and job growth. Or as one hospitality industry jobs boards said about this fast-growing boomtown opportunity : “Golden Opportunities in the Gaming Industry.” If you enjoy customer service, there might just be a casino career ahead of you: casinos provide plenty of 24/7 cleaning jobs, bar-tending, security, food service, entertainment, and retail jobs.
When you pull that lever, think, is this the kind of industry I would want in my community? The New York Times has an interesting graphic that shows those polled would vote for more gambling in New York. But many thought the whole industry was a cumulative negative for society.
Proposal Two – Additional Civil Service Credit for Veterans with Disabilities Certified Post-Appointment. This amendment plays to a particular segment of the population, military/veterans, and at first read sounds just fine. It appears to relate to earning civil service job credits after a job appointment and/or promotions wherein after the appointment the job member becomes disabled. The proposed amendment would allow that member to then earn an additional civil service credit outside of any other that was already claimed.
The root of this amendment may rest in the recurring disabilities service members are experiencing, due to our current theater of war techniques. Use your conscience.
Proposal Three – Exclusion of Indebtedness Contracted for Sewage Facilities. This would be the kick-the-can amendment which gives NY towns and villages a pass on state-mandated sewer improvements. Think Sloatsburg. The village must make sewer improvements. The Village Board votes to bond the expense. The result is village debt.
Abstract: The purpose of the proposed amendment to section 5 of article 8 of the Constitution is to continue to allow counties, cities, towns, and villages to exclude from their constitutional debt limits indebtedness incurred for the construction or reconstruction of sewage facilities.
The proposed amendment would extend for ten years, until January 1, 2024, the period during which sewer debt will be excluded from the constitutional debt limits of counties, cities, towns, and villages.
Proposal Four – Settling Disputed Title in the Forest Preserve. The gist of this bill appears to be land swap between the state of New York and the International Paper Company concerning some 8,000 acres. Then throw in other local town and village land disputes with the state. So, International Paper Company gets new tree lands to harvest. New York State gets parkland. Condition of said land TBD. Lobbyists certainly wrote this amendment.
Proposal Five – In Relation to a Land Exchange in the State Forest Preserve with NYCO Minerals, Inc. Another doozy of a land swap between a private mining company and the state. It’s all good.
Proposal Six – Increasing Age until which Certain State Judges Can Serve. Amendment six is all about job security. For judges. Forever. Or until they are 80 years of age. The amendment would allow Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the Court of Appeals to serve another 10 years, instead of the current mandatory bench retirement age of 70 years old.
And why not? These judges have been on the bench a lifetime already. Why not block any new blood from serving in the judicial system? Why not just propose an amendment for lifetime terms? It’s all good.
