Other Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Other Commitments And Contingencies	Other Commitments and Contingencies As of September 30, 2014, the Company had seven entertainment development projects for which it has commitments to fund approximately $33.6 million, 19 education development projects for which it has commitments to fund approximately $136.8 million and nine recreation development projects for which it has commitments to fund approximately $108.0 million. Development costs are advanced by the Company in periodic draws. If the Company determines that construction is not being completed in accordance with the terms of the development agreement, it can discontinue funding construction draws. The Company has agreed to lease the properties to the operators at pre-determined rates upon completion of construction. The Company has certain commitments related to its mortgage note investments that it may be required to fund in the future. The Company is generally obligated to fund these commitments at the request of the borrower or upon the occurrence of events outside of its direct control. As of September 30, 2014, the Company had nine mortgage notes receivable with commitments totaling approximately $190.3 million. If commitments are funded in the future, interest will be charged at rates consistent with the existing investments. The Company has provided guarantees of the payment of certain economic development revenue bonds totaling $20.4 million related to two theatres in Louisiana for which the Company earns a fee at annual rates of 2.88% to 4.00% over the 30-year terms of the related bonds. The Company recorded $8.6 million as a deferred asset included in other assets and $8.6 million included in other liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2014 related to these guarantees. No amounts have been accrued as a loss contingency related to these guarantees because payment by the Company is not probable. On June 7, 2011, affiliates of Louis Cappelli, Concord Associates, L.P., Concord Resort, LLC and Concord Kiamesha LLC (the Cappelli Group), filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Sullivan, against two subsidiaries of the Company seeking (i) a declaratory judgment the Company's obligations under a previously disclosed settlement agreement involving these entities, (ii) an order that the Company execute the golf course lease and the “Racino Parcel” lease subject to the settlement agreement, and (iii) an extension of the restrictive covenant against ownership or operation of a casino on the Concord resort property under the settlement agreement (the Restrictive Covenant), which covenant was set to expire on December 31, 2011. The Company filed counterclaims seeking related relief. The Cappelli Group subsequently obtained leave to discontinue its claims, but the counterclaims remained pending. On June 30, 2014, the Court (i) denied the Cappelli Group's motion to dismiss the counterclaims, (ii) granted the Company's motion for summary judgment finding that the Cappelli Group missed the December 31, 2011 deadline to fully execute a master credit agreement which was a condition to the Company's obligation to continue its joint development activities with the Cappelli Group under the settlement agreement, (iii) granted the Company's motion for summary judgment finding that the Restrictive Covenant had expired, and (iv) granted the Company's motion for declaratory relief declaring the Company as master developer of the Concord resort property. Subject to the Cappelli Group's right to appeal these decisions, we believe these orders resolve all remaining issues in the Sullivan County, New York case. On October 20, 2011, the Cappelli Group also filed suit against the Company and two affiliates in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, asserting a claim for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith, and seeking damages of at least $800.0 million, based on the same allegations as in the action the Cappelli Group filed in Sullivan County Supreme Court. The Company has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in Westchester County based on the Sullivan County Supreme Court’s June 30, 2014 decision, and the Cappelli Group has cross-moved for a stay of the action. Briefing should be completed by November 3, 2014. On September 18, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) dismissed the complaint filed by Concord Associates L.P. and six other companies affiliated with Mr. Cappelli against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, Empire Resorts, Inc. and Monticello Raceway Management, Inc. (collectively, Empire), and Kien Huat Realty III Limited and Genting New York LLC (collectively, Genting). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company had conspired with Empire to monopolize the racing and gaming market in the Catskills by entering into exclusivity and development agreements to develop a comprehensive resort destination in Sullivan County, New York. The plaintiffs are seeking $500.0 million in damages (trebled to $1.5 billion under antitrust law), punitive damages, and injunctive relief. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs’ federal antitrust claims against all defendants with prejudice, and dismissed the pendent state law claims against Empire and Genting without prejudice, meaning they could be further pursued in state court. On October 2, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the District Court, seeking permission to file a Second Amended Complaint, and soon after filed a Notice of Appeal. The Company has not determined that losses related to these matters are probable. Because of the favorable rulings from the Supreme Court of Sullivan County, New York and the District Court, and the pending or potential appeals, together with the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation generally, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine the amount or range of reasonably possible loss with respect to these matters. The Company's assessments are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause the Company to change those estimates and assumptions. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries by the Cappelli Group and its affiliates, for which the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

As of September 30, 2014, the Company had seven entertainment development projects for which it has commitments to fund approximately $33.6 million, 19 education development projects for which it has commitments to fund approximately $136.8 million and nine recreation development projects for which it has commitments to fund approximately $108.0 million. Development costs are advanced by the Company in periodic draws. If the Company determines that construction is not being completed in accordance with the terms of the development agreement, it can discontinue funding construction draws. The Company has agreed to lease the properties to the operators at pre-determined rates upon completion of construction.

The Company has certain commitments related to its mortgage note investments that it may be required to fund in the future. The Company is generally obligated to fund these commitments at the request of the borrower or upon the occurrence of events outside of its direct control. As of September 30, 2014, the Company had nine mortgage notes receivable with commitments totaling approximately $190.3 million. If commitments are funded in the future, interest will be charged at rates consistent with the existing investments.

The Company has provided guarantees of the payment of certain economic development revenue bonds totaling $20.4 million related to two theatres in Louisiana for which the Company earns a fee at annual rates of 2.88% to 4.00% over the 30-year terms of the related bonds. The Company recorded $8.6 million as a deferred asset included in other assets and $8.6 million included in other liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2014 related to these guarantees. No amounts have been accrued as a loss contingency related to these guarantees because payment by the Company is not probable.

On June 7, 2011, affiliates of Louis Cappelli, Concord Associates, L.P., Concord Resort, LLC and Concord Kiamesha LLC (the Cappelli Group), filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Sullivan, against two subsidiaries of the Company seeking (i) a declaratory judgment the Company's obligations under a previously disclosed settlement agreement involving these entities, (ii) an order that the Company execute the golf course lease and the “Racino Parcel” lease subject to the settlement agreement, and (iii) an extension of the restrictive covenant against ownership or operation of a casino on the Concord resort property under the settlement agreement (the Restrictive Covenant), which covenant was set to expire on December 31, 2011. The Company filed counterclaims seeking related relief. The Cappelli Group subsequently obtained leave to discontinue its claims, but the counterclaims remained pending. On June 30, 2014, the Court (i) denied the Cappelli Group's motion to dismiss the counterclaims, (ii) granted the Company's motion for summary judgment finding that the Cappelli Group missed the December 31, 2011 deadline to fully execute a master credit agreement which was a condition to the Company's obligation to continue its joint development activities with the Cappelli Group under the settlement agreement, (iii) granted the Company's motion for summary judgment finding that the Restrictive Covenant had expired, and (iv) granted the Company's motion for declaratory relief declaring the Company as master developer of the Concord resort property. Subject to the Cappelli Group's right to appeal these decisions, we believe these orders resolve all remaining issues in the Sullivan County, New York case.

On October 20, 2011, the Cappelli Group also filed suit against the Company and two affiliates in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, asserting a claim for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith, and seeking damages of at least $800.0 million, based on the same allegations as in the action the Cappelli Group filed in Sullivan County Supreme Court. The Company has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in Westchester County based on the Sullivan County Supreme Court’s June 30, 2014 decision, and the Cappelli Group has cross-moved for a stay of the action. Briefing should be completed by November 3, 2014.

On September 18, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) dismissed the complaint filed by Concord Associates L.P. and six other companies affiliated with Mr. Cappelli against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, Empire Resorts, Inc. and Monticello Raceway Management, Inc. (collectively, Empire), and Kien Huat Realty III Limited and Genting New York LLC (collectively, Genting). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company had conspired with Empire to monopolize the racing and gaming market in the Catskills by entering into exclusivity and development agreements to develop a comprehensive resort destination in Sullivan County, New York. The plaintiffs are seeking $500.0 million in damages (trebled to $1.5 billion under antitrust law), punitive damages, and injunctive relief. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs’ federal antitrust claims against all defendants with prejudice, and dismissed the pendent state law claims against Empire and Genting without prejudice, meaning they could be further pursued in state court. On October 2, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the District Court, seeking permission to file a Second Amended Complaint, and soon after filed a Notice of Appeal.

The Company has not determined that losses related to these matters are probable. Because of the favorable rulings from the Supreme Court of Sullivan County, New York and the District Court, and the pending or potential appeals, together with the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation generally, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine the amount or range of reasonably possible loss with respect to these matters. The Company's assessments are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause the Company to change those estimates and assumptions. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries by the Cappelli Group and its affiliates, for which the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome.