Doug M. commented on When a casino looked like the Mets' best betThree other developer entities, whose proposals adhered to the RFP specifications, were passed over so that Sterling/Related -- which initially proposed to construct a 450,000 square foot casino on pubic parkland property that is beyond the scope of the RFP -- were eventually selected. The City claims that the casino has been eliminated from the "revised" plan of Sterling/Related that is now being pursued. And yet, NYCEDC is stonewalling disclosure of the revised final proposal of Sterling/Related, as well as the project contract -- either or both of which may reveal whether a casino is still a viable component of the plan, notwithstanding any comments of City officials. Furthermore, nothing about the current project's environmental review documents precludes a casino from being the developers' actual objective, even now. All they have done is substitute the generic, benign words "entertainment center" for the word "casino", which would be a lightning rod for community opposition as the project seeks needed approvals this year.
Posted on February 5th, 2013 11:49am