What's moved things along, we're told, is that Governor Spitzer wants it to happen, and he brings the treasury of the kingdom to help out. My friends down at the Phoenicia Times near Belleayre are saying the main deal maker is a proposed "extreme makeover" of the state-owned Belleayre Ski Resort. The number being bandied about is $47 million in state money. Of course, with the gag order in place, there is no confirmation. All of this remains juicy scuttlebutt.

Negotiating stakeholders do include a proven skeptical consortium of environmental interests who have been generally opposed to much of the project, especially its gigantic scale and the impact it would have on the quality of life and the quality of water in the region, as well as on the New York City water supply.

Directly beneath the east side of the proposed development in Shandaken is the Esopus Creek, which empties into the New York City watershed's Ashokan Reservoir. A short distance away is the edge of the rugged forever wild Catskill Park.

The biggest issue environmental opponents have with Gitter's massive proposal is the plan to build on the east side of Belleayre. They want nothing there at all. In fact, they'd like to see Gitter's holdings on the east side turned into forever wild forest preserve.

That would conform to what we can call the "Hinchey Rule." Last summer, after Gitter proposed reducing the size of the original plan to satisfy critics, Congressman Maurice Hinchey countered with the written view there should be no development on the east side at all because it is simply too environmentally sensitive.

Gitter rejected that notion, stating he needed the east side otherwise the development did not make economic sense.

But that was then. The state's proposal to create a dazzling ski center at Belleayre brings all new possibilities to the table. Supposedly, the ski center would feature a lodge at the base of the 2,500-foot mountain, instead of half-way up, as it is now. That would facilitate longer and better trails, and make a perfect fit for Gitter's golf courses and spas, conference centers and multiple types of housing and hotels as a year-around destination resort.

The Catskill Mountain House of the 21st century.

While these negotiations continue, the clock has been stopped on a hearing before a Department of Environmental Conservation administrative law judge to adjudicate a number of issues identified by opponents of the private development. Once that clock is restarted -- heralding a breakdown in closed-door negotiations -- a legal resolution that may or may not result in permits to build could take years of expensive litigation.

So there's plenty of motivation to break the logjam now. Environmental lawyer Marc Gerstman is upbeat, but would only say "We're still talking, after all these months, we're still talking." Dean Gitter's lawyer Dan Ruzow added that he hasn't been so optimistic in years.

Ah, but there are two new flies in the soup. Once neighboring Greene County got wind of the rumors about Belleayre in Ulster County, inter-county friction quickly developed. Greene County is home to two private ski resorts, Hunter Mountain and Ski Windham. The howls are loud and long that what the state supposedly proposes with Belleayre creates unfair competition. They may have a point, we'll see.

So, whatever comes out of these closed-door negotiations is by no means the end of it, only the beginning of the next set of headaches for the state. LeBrun can be reached at 454-5453 or by e-mail at [email protected].

Industrial Wind in the Catskills?

Posted by · June 18, 2007 3:46 AM

Many of our pristine Catskill ridge lines and other areas of rural Upstate NY are being targeted for Industrial Wind development. There are many issues with Industrial Wind Development and that need to be thoroughly explored and addressed prior to allowing any projects to proceed, especially here in the Catskills. As always with issues such as Industrial Wind Generation there are pros and cons. Hopefully this forum can play a role in advancing a more thoughtful approach and open discussion on the potential impacts many of which may be significant to the Catskills and our way of life here. - Steve Dungan As a Staring point, below is an excerpt of a paper that assesses current New York plans and policies on Industrial Wind. Those interested may access the full paper at: http://www.windaction.org/documents/10133 A Critical Evaluation of the Energy Plans and Actions Announced in April 2007 June 12, 2007 By by Glenn R. Schleede, Round Hill (VA) Summary This brief paper reviews and evaluates key aspects of energy policies and plans announced by New York State officials, and contrasts their electricity plans with those of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) which is responsible for the reliability of New York's electricity grid. Both sets of plans have major implications for the people of New York. Executive Summary Recent energy policy announcements by the Governor of New York, the President of NYSERDA,[i] and the Chairwoman of the NY State Public Service Commission must leave many people in New York - especially in Upstate and Western New York -- wondering what their elected and appointed leaders in Albany have against them. New York's Independent System Operator (NYISO), which manages the wholesale electric grid in NY and works to assure that electric service will be reliable, has concluded that New York will require additional generating capacity as electricity demand grows. The Governor's focus on the challenge of providing adequate electricity for New York may be a good sign, but the steps that he and other State officials announced in April are unlikely to achieve the goals he announced. Some of those steps would not be in the best interest of the people of New York -- particularly its electric customers and taxpayers, or homeowners in many rural areas and others who enjoy the state's scenic areas. The claims of economic benefits and additional jobs, apparently assembled for the Governor by state officials, are not credible. The costly proposals by the Governor, NYSERDA and NYSPSC to force greater use of "wind energy" are particularly puzzling. The state officials appear to be unaware of facts about wind energy that have been uncovered during the past two years - facts that contradict claims made by the wind industry and other wind advocates. For example, the officials seem unaware or unconcerned that: · Huge wind turbines (35+ stories tall) produce very little electricity -- which electricity is low in quality and value because it is intermittent, volatile, unreliable and unlikely to be available when most needed. · Wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce electricity at times of peak electricity demand (late summer afternoons on hot weekdays in July and August), and will not replace the need for the electric industry to add reliable electric generating capacity to supply increasing electric demand or replace aging generating plants. · Huge tax breaks and subsidies for "wind farm" owners - not environmental and energy benefits - are the primary reasons that companies are eager to build wind farms. · Wind energy advocates have greatly overstated environmental and economic benefits of wind energy and greatly understated adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, property value and human impacts. In fact, policies and programs announced by the state officials would result in: · Transferring nearly $ 1.3 billion additional dollars from the pockets of ordinary electric customers and taxpayers to pockets of large "wind farm" owning companies, particularly Noble Environmental Power (majority owned by JP Morgan Partners, LLC), Massachusetts -based UPC Wind, and Community Energy, Inc. (wholly owned by Iberdola of Spain). · Spending billions of capital investment dollars on energy projects that produce little electricity when needed and have little favorable local economic impact. · Undermining the property values, peace and tranquility of thousands of families in rural New York who would be forced to live in the shadows of hundreds of huge, noisy wind turbines, and destroy some of New York's beautiful scenery. New York already has some of the nation's highest tax burdens and, except for Hawaii, the highest residential electricity prices. The steps announced by the Governor, NYSERDA and NYSPSC are likely to make the situation worse. This brief paper reviews and evaluates key aspects of energy policies and plans announced by New York State officials, and contrasts their electricity plans with those of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) which is responsible for the reliability of New York's electricity grid. Both sets of plans have major implications for the people of New York. Those interested may access the full paper at: http://www.windaction.org/documents/10133

Submit Comments to The DOE on NIETCs

Posted by · June 14, 2007 12:04 AM

As the result of a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) now has the authority to designate "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors" (NIETCs). When a part of the country receives a NIETC designation, the federal government is then allowed under certain conditions to overrule local and state objections to proposed power line projects, issue construction permits to energy companies, and grant the use of eminent domain authority, which would allow for the seizure of private property from unwilling owners in order to develop those power lines. In April 2007, the Department of Energy proposed two NIETC designations in the United States, including one in eastern part of the country that includes 47 counties in New York. The proposed NIETC designation for much of New York threatens to pave the way for the permitting and construction of New York Regional Interconnection's (NYRI) proposal of a nearly 200-mile power line that would cut through dozens of communities and the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River. View Map: http://www.house.gov/hinchey/NIETCdesignationmap.pdf NIETCdesignationmap.pdf The DOE is currently accepting comments on the proposed NIETCs. Please make your feelings known!!!! You can do it On Line at: http://nietc.anl.gov/involve/comments/index.cfm NIETC and Congestion Study Public Comment Form

STOP NYRI!! Hinchey Unveils Federal Legislation

Posted by · June 13, 2007 6:10 AM

For Immediate Release

February 5, 2007

Hinchey Unveils Federal Legislation
To Stop NYRI Power Line Proposal

Introduces Three Bills To Ensure Federal Government
Won't Facilitate Power Line Project

Monticello, NY - Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) today unveiled legislation he is introducing in the House that would effectively stop the New York Regional Interconnection, Inc. (NYRI) power line proposal from moving forward. The congressman is introducing three pieces of bipartisan legislation that aim to revise and amend the provisions set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in order to ensure that the federal government does not overrule local and state officials and force the NYRI project upon New York residents. Hinchey sponsored two of the bills and is an original cosponsor of the third, which is authored by Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), who has a similar power line proposal pending in the congressional district which he represents. Congressman John Hall (D-NY) and Congressman Michael Arcuri (D-NY) are cosponsoring all three bills with Hinchey.

NYRI is proposing to construct a nearly 200-mile high voltage direct current (HVDC) electric transmission line from Oneida County to Orange County, New York. Hinchey believes the proposed project threatens the federally-protected Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River and would have serious adverse impacts on local communities along the proposed routes.

"The opposition by New York residents to NYRI's power line proposal is overwhelming. No one wants massive towers and power lines cutting through the Upper Delaware Scenic River Valley or their backyard for that matter," Hinchey said. "These bills would prevent the federal government from stepping in on behalf of NYRI and forcing New York residents to live with this power line project. The federal government should be in the business of protecting the interests of the people of New York and the entire country, not just helping power companies make huge profits."

"Our bills are an attempt to protect the environment and protect property rights from the ill conceived NYRI proposal," Hall said. "Energy companies shouldn't get special protection in federal law to put power lines wherever they want and run roughshod over property owners, community groups, environmental advocates, and state and local governments. Unfortunately, that's exactly what Congress let them do in 2005. These bills will give citizens, state and local governments much more say in what gets built in their own backyard, which is how such decisions are supposed to be made."

"Today is a turning point in the fight against NYRI. I?m glad to be here with this bipartisan group of elected officials, to announce the actions we in Congress are taking to insure that NYRI does not run roughshod over the communities and property owners who would be affected by this poorly planned and ill conceived proposal. I have worked together with Representatives Hinchey and Hall to come up with the best possible way to keep this power line from damaging our communities,? Arcuri said. ?This is an issue that is close to me on a personal level. The proposal NYRI has designated as their primary route runs just a couple hundred yards from my home in South Utica. But that?s not the only reason I support the effort to fight this project - this power line, at the admission of its own backers, will raise energy costs for the very Upstate communities that would be devastated by the construction and towers.?

The first bill Hinchey is sponsoring would outright repeal the section of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy to designate National Corridors and/or grant permits for projects in those corridors. The second bill that Hinchey is sponsoring and introducing today, the Protecting Communities from Power Line Abuse Act, would strip the ability of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to grant federal eminent domain authority to projects such as the one proposed by NYRI. That bill would in essence make it much more difficult, and probably impossible, for the NYRI proposal to proceed in the event New York State denies a permit. Even though FERC could theoretically permit the project, NYRI could not use federal powers to take private lands from unwilling sellers.

The third bill, which Hinchey is cosponsoring, is called the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Clarification Act. The measure has many provisions, but essentially ensures that areas which are recognized for their scenic, natural, cultural, or historic values, such as the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River, are protected from electric corridors. The bill helps ensure that local and state authorities have control over the final outcome and also allows for greater public input on such matters.

"Those of us introducing these bills recognize we need to act quickly in order to stop the federal government from overruling state and local objections to NYRI's project," Hinchey said. "That's why we're introducing legislation today and will be putting on a heavy press to move forward these bills and protect the quality of life for area residents. I look forward to using my new position on the House Natural Resources Committee to help advance this legislation and will be talking about it with my colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well."

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which Hinchey opposed, included provisions to allow the federal government to overrule state decision-making powers in permitting power line proposals such as NYRI's. The Department of Energy is working towards the designation of National Corridors or National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors. The Corridors would recognize areas of electric transmission congestion and allow projects proposed in those corridors to apply to the federal government for permits if they are denied by state citing authorities.

Unless action is taken in Congress, New York residents could face a situation later this year in which the U.S. Department of Energy's FERC designates part of upstate New York as a National Corridor, as NYRI has requested and petitioned. Such a designation opens the possibility that in the event New York State denies or delays the permits for the NYRI power line due to the potential impacts or other concerns, FERC could then step in and issue permits for the project. Under the Energy Policy Act, this would also allow for the use of federal powers of eminent domain to acquire private lands in order to make the project possible.

Hundreds of local businesses, community and environmental organizations, elected officials, business groups and others in the communities along the path of this proposed line have come together to organize and fight to stop the NYRI proposal. Joining Hinchey at the press conference to announce the bills were: Christopher Cunningham, Sullivan County Legislative Chairman/Communities Against Regional Interconnect (CARI); Troy Bystrom, Upper Delaware Preservation Coalition (UDPC); Nina Guenste, SayNo2NYRI; and William Douglass, Upper Delaware Council (UDC).

Group wants to preserve Catskills, legacy

Posted by · June 13, 2007 6:07 AM

6-5-2007

By Patricia Breakey

Delhi News Bureau

A group has formed to unite residents of the Catskill region in preserving the quality of life.

Catskill Mountainkeeper started with the idea that an advocate was needed for the 6,000-square-mile region that encompasses Delaware, Greene, Otsego, Schoharie, Sullivan and Ulster counties and a portion of Albany County, Wes Gillingham, organization spokesman, said last month.

"The Catskill Mountains have a regional identity that other areas in the state don’t have," Gillingham said. "We can take advantage of that by creating a regional task force."

Gillingham, a vegetable farmer, said he wants to work to protect the Catskills.

"I live here, I farm here, and I love living and working here," Gillingham said. "I want the Catskills always to have a quality of life my family and neighbors can enjoy.

"The last thing my neighbors and I want to do is fight traffic and see the farms and forest land taken over by haphazard development," he continued. "Some parents talk of wanting a better life for their children. I just want my kids to have some of the simple freedoms I had as a child.

"These mountains have really shaped the kind of people we are here in the Catskills, and now it is time for us to shape what these mountains will look like in 20 years and beyond," Gillingham said. "That’s why I decided to take on what I see as a crucial job for our region’s future."

Another Catskills farmer, Amy Kenyon, said recently that she "is hoping to work to give the people who live and work here a voice in what’s happening in their town. I want to see local folks getting involved. It’s their community, and it’s their issues."

Kenyon, president of Farm Catskills, a Delaware County-based group intended to strengthen farming in the region, added, "If our rural character is to survive, we need a good regional vision that protects our region’s wonderful vistas, open spaces and farmland _ the things that make us different."

Gillingham added that because the area is so large, "it’s hard to keep track of what’s happening on the other side of the mountains," so the group plans to utilize the Internet to keep in touch.

"We have a modern, capable website where people can register and become part of the group," Gillingham said.

Ramsay Adams, executive director, in a media release said, ``Our goal is to bring together people who have never talked with each other and have them join in the fight to preserve the Catskill way of life.’’

On its website, http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org, the group will post updates on regional development news, operate online discussion boards and provide campaign-organizing advice and tools.

Registration is free, Gillingham said.

"Residents of the Catskills are as diverse as in any place on earth," Joe Martens, group chairman, said in a media release. "But one thing everyone can unite on is that this is a special region that needs its people speaking up so that its tremendous cultural and natural resources stay intact."

The group’s priority is to push for a comprehensive, regional vision that takes into account thinking about smart growth and wise use of the area’s natural resources, Martens said.

"We all know there’s a great deal of development pressure on the Catskills, but we also know there are good and bad options under review this very moment," Tom Alworth, a Catskill Mountainkeeper board member and Catskill Center for Conservation and Development executive director, said in a media release.

___

Patricia Breakey can be reached at 746-2894 or at [email protected].

Welcome to the Threats to the Catskills Forum

Posted by · June 13, 2007 6:02 AM

What flora and fauna make the Catskills unique? What impact are people and businesses having on them? What can we do to protect the region as a whole, or just our own little corners of it? Environmentalists, enthusiasts, and everyday people will be discussing these questions and more in the environment forum. Won't you join us?

Town of Fallsburg

Posted by · May 23, 2007 8:23 AM

Having seen the coverage in the River Reporter about your group, I was intrigued in lots of ways, but specifically because I believe if we the people don't take charge, we can kiss our beautiful area goodby. I am personally watching what I consider crime in action in my town. I live in Mountaindale, a "hamlet" of the town of Fallsburg. Out town supervisor has recently decided to alter the zoning plan presented to the town board by residents who worked as volunteers for 18 months developing a comprehensive plan. In an interest to appease the orthodox developers, Mr. Levine has decided to allow them a lot of leeway to develop what looks to a lot of us like the beginning of a new Kiryas Joel. If you haven't had the good fortune yet, please drive by Alpine Estates at the foot of the Kiamesha Hill (Fallsburg side) and on Brophy Road where it meets the Town of Hurleyville. Despite an uproar by the citizens, the Board is actively courting the seasonal residents for their block vote. If anyone has any ideas of how to help, please let us know. Our (terrible) roads and limited water and sewer will be overwhelmed by this growth

Catskill Mountainkeeper Launches with a Mission

Posted by · May 15, 2007 10:48 AM

Catskill Mountainkeeper launches with a mission:
Build active network of citizens speaking out for the Catskills way of life

Group seeks to unite residents from all parts of the Catskills to protect
open space and promote smart growth in the region’s villages, mountains and valleys

    Monticello (May 10, 2007) – Catskill Mountainkeeper, a grassroots group intended to unite the entire region’s residents in the battle to preserve the quality of life here, announced it is open for business today at a news conference in front of the Sullivan County Government Center.
    “Residents of the Catskills are as diverse as in any place on earth, but one thing everyone can unite on is that this is a special region that needs its people speaking up so that its tremendous cultural and natural resources stay intact,” said Joe Martens, the group’s chairman. “Catskill Mountainkeeper will build an active network of citizens to make that happen.”
    Martens also is the president of the Open Space Institute, one of several groups sponsoring Catskill Mountainkeeper.
    The group’s key priority is to push for a comprehensive, regional vision that takes into account new thinking about smart growth and wise use of the area’s natural resources, Martens said. Working with other established groups, Catskill Mountainkeeper then will organize citizens across the region’s counties to contribute their ideas for the region’s future as part of that process.
    At the news conference, members held poster-board cutouts of the region’s six counties (Delaware, Greene, Otsego, Schoharie, Sullivan, Ulster, plus a portion of Albany County, which is geographically in the Catskills), bringing them together in a symbolic illustration of the regional unity that the group plans to foster.
    The group offers free membership in keeping with its goal of having a broad spectrum of citizen involvement.
    “With a combination of the web and plain old shoe-leather organizing, our goal is to bring together people who have never talked with each other and have them join in the fight to preserve the Catskill way of life,” said Ramsay Adams, the executive director of the new group.
    On its website, www.catskillmountainkeeper.org, the group will post updates on regional development news, operate on-line discussion boards and provide campaign-organizing advice and tools.
    “We all know there’s a great deal of development pressure on the Catskills, but we also know there are good and bad options under review this very moment,” said Tom Alworth, another Catskill Mountainkeeper board member and the executive director of the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development, another sponsoring organization.
    “When it’s out-of-scale, non-sustainable proposals like the massive casinos proposed for Sullivan County, Catskill Mountainkeeper can help get the word out – and make sure that those who want clear air, open space and a great quality of life win the day for our region,” Alworth added.
    “I live here, I work here, and I love living and working here, and I want the Catskills always to be a place I am proud to live in,” said Wes Gillingham, Catskill Mountainkeeper’s program director and also the co-owner of the Wild Roots Farm in Sullivan County.
    “The last thing my neighbors and I want to do is fight traffic, see the countryside taken over by haphazard development or breathe polluted air – so that’s why I decided to take on this job,” said Gillingham, “Our vision of the Catskills is for economic success by focusing on the industries that we do best, like the resurgence of farming, tourism based on the enjoyment of our natural beauty and vibrant downtowns.”
    Another Catskills farmer, Amy Kenyon, said she is looking to Catskill Mountainkeeper to provide farmers and other local residents with the tools to get their voice heard.
    Kenyon also is president of Farm Catskills, a Delaware County-based group intended to strengthen farming in the region. “If our rural character is to survive, we need a good regional vision that protects our region’s wonderful vistas, open spaces and farmland – the things that make us different,” said Kenyon.
     Patrick H. Dollard, the chief executive officer of The Center for Discovery – Sullivan County’s largest employer – also endorsed Catskill Mountainkeeper.
    The group will open an office in Youngsville, Sullivan County, this June. Other major sponsoring organizations are the Natural Resources Defense Council and Audubon New York.

Catskill Mountainkeeper group launches

Posted by · May 14, 2007 4:44 PM

Monticello – A new grassroots group designed to preserve the quality of life in the Catskills has been formed.

Catskill Mountainkeeper was launched in front of the Sullivan County Government Center in Monticello on Thursday.

“Residents of the Catskills are as diverse as in any place on earth, but one thing everyone can unite on is that this is a special region that needs its people speaking up so that its tremendous cultural and natural resources stay intact,” said Joe Martens, the group’s chairman. “Catskill Mountainkeeper will build an active network of citizens to make that happen.”

Martens is also the president of the Open Space Institute, one of the several groups sponsoring Catskill Mountainkeeper.

The group’s key priority is to push for a comprehensive, regional vision that takes into account new thinking about smart group and wise use of the area’s natural resources, he said.

“We all know there’s a great deal of development pressure on the Catskills, but we also know there are good and bad options under review this very moment,” said Tom Alworth, another Catskill Mountainkeeper board member and the executive director of the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development. “When it’s out-of-scale, non-sustainable proposals like the massive casinos proposed for Sullivan County, Catskill Mountainkeeper can help get the word out – and make sure that those who want clean air, open space and a great quality of life win the day for our region.”

“I live here, I work here, and I love living and working here, and I want the Catskills always to be a place I am proud to live in,” said Wes Gillingham, Catskills Mountainkeeper’s program director and also the co-owner of the Wild Roots Farm in Sullivan County.

“The last thing my neighbors and I want to do is fight traffic, see the countryside taken over by haphazard development or breathe polluted air.”

NY Post Slams Catskill Casino Scheme

Posted by · February 22, 2007 1:53 AM

THE GOV'S GAMBLING GOOF

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02212007/postopinion/editorials/the_govs_gambling_goof_editorials_.htm

February 21, 2007 -- Gov. Spitzer is getting into bed with the St. Regis Mohawks, giving the green light to a partnership between the upstate Indian tribe and a private firm to build a $600 million casino at the former Monticello Raceway in the economically troubled Catskills.

Bad move.

We're no fans of legalized gambling; it's socially corrosive on several levels.

But that horse is out of the barn. Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and upstate New York already have casinos galore, and it's clear that the N.Y.C. area will, too - even if it means subverting the state Constitution's ban on casinos via compacts with Indian tribes.

However, doing a deal with this particular tribe - with its extended history of often-violent criminality - is a travesty.

Over the past eight years, the feds have cited the St. Regis Mohawks in connection with a $687 million smuggling operation involving illegal liquor, cigarettes and guns.

They've also done a brisk business smuggling people - transporting more than 3,600 illegal aliens from China into America through the St. Regis reservation, which transverses the U.S.-Canadian border along the St. Lawrence River.

They've also occasionally engaged in shoot-outs with the New York State Police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian army.

Not exactly good neighbors, we'd say.

Yet the last two governors have worked overtime to expand the Mohawks' control over casino gambling in New York.

Yes, the Catskills need economic help.

And there's no denying the potential revenue lure of this casino, which would be closer to the metropolitan area than either Atlantic City or Foxwoods.

But it would be fully 400 miles from the St. Regis reservation; in no credible sense is it part of tribal lands - logically, a prerequisite for the establishment of an Indian-owned casino.

And while the 1988 federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act allows for some latitude in this regard, U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne - who must sign off on any deal - has said lawmakers didn't intend to OK casinos so far from tribal land.

All of which suggests that the court battles are far from over. Competing casino interests, opponents of legalized gambling and local residents fearful of the casino's impact on traffic and other conditions all have vowed a fight.

We hope they wage it with vigor.

Happily, there's no sign that Kempthorne will rush to any decision in the matter. In fact, the matter will likely stay up in the air for years.

Which means there's time enough for the state to do this right.

If casino gambling is as inevitable as it appears, then it's time to amend the state Constitution to open gambling to everyone - not just dubious partners like the St. Regis Mohawks.

This would be an extended process: Two successively elected Legislatures would have to agree, and then there would be a statewide referendum.

There would be no guarantees, to be sure.

But it's the way to go.

Meanwhile, Spitzer needs to read the relevant State Police files on the St. Regis Mohawk tribe.

When he does, he'll come to his senses quickly enough - and ice this project.

Closed talks shut out public from Belleayre plan in Catskills