Casino / Zoning Update - Page 2 - PhillyBlog

alesis · #11 (**permalink**) 03-29-2007, 04:28 PM

new in the hood,
I'm sorry if you misunderstood my position.
This thread is in the QV/BV area of phillyblog. I own property in pennsport, and think that just about anyone in pennsport can consider the casino a backyard situation, since homes could be lost and the inherent problems from the casinos would hit you far more than Queen Village.

I also feel that alot of fuddy duddys are using pennsport for their own agenda, such as when someone in QV says "keep casinos away from our schools". QV doesn't have a single school that is within a notable radius of the casino-pennsport does. QV says that casino patrons and employees will park in their neighborhood, which is unlikely-but entirely possible for Pennsport residents. In fact, just about any disingenuous argument other groups bring up would at least be a viable point when regarding pennsport.

Quote:

Originally Posted by new in the hood

I live in Pennsport, so it is fair to say that Foxwoods would be in my backyard.

But, according to the other bloggers, being anti-casino makes me a NIMBY. I'm selfishly looking out for my neighborhood and my property values and ignoring the "good" this will do for the city. (I don't think they will do much good, but you see my point.)

Thus, your argument leaves me stuck. As a pennsportan (is that a word) - I've got standing. But, to others, my neighborhood standing makes me biased.

The whole thing makes my head spin. But then, the arguments on this boards have become so circular, dominated by the same voices saying the same things, that I'm ready to give up.

zur · #12 (**permalink**) 03-29-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthStMan

did y'all see this today?

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Today citizens publicly announced that they have uncovered a law prohibiting casinos in along North Delaware Avenue. The law is zoning code Ch 14-1624 which prohibits any venue whose primary purpose is "entertainment of guests and patrons" is allowed. Casinos would thus be excluded.

This law applies to Delaware Avenue from Spring Garden to Lehigh Avenue. It would exclude the SugarHouse site but not the Foxwoods site. (Incidentally, it would exclude the Riverwalk and Pinnacle site.)

This law was created in 2002 in response to the development in the late to mid 90s when Fishtown and Northern Liberties were plagued by Delaware Avenue nightclubs. The nightclubs brought shootings and dangerous drunken behavior to the neighborhood. As a result, the community made the zoning prohibition.

more

State law trumps local laws.

See: State Riparian Laws & Gaming Laws.

zur · #13 (**permalink**) 03-29-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladys Kravitz

If any proposal that includes Entertainment of Guests or Patrons, like restaurants, theaters, hotels, etc. were proposed, they'd have to get a variance, and we could decide for ourselves what we want in OUR BACK YARDS.

Maybe this whole casino horror has scared the people who oppose virtually everything to rethink their positions. I for one don't want to turn the entire water front into Kelly Drive II. There are plenty of development possibilities that most of the effected neighborhoods would welcome.

If we let neighborhoods decide everything we wouldn't have a courts system, education, water, etc.

NIMBY groups fight everything from new HS's to water treatment plants, treatment centers, anything..

If somethings getting built somebody's fighting it for their own personal gain.

Marc · #14 (**permalink**) 03-29-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zur

If we let neighborhoods decide everything we wouldn't have a courts system, education, water, etc.

NIMBY groups fight everything from new HS's to water treatment plants, treatment centers, anything..

If somethings getting built somebody's fighting it for their own personal gain.

There are essential municipal institutions that are debated and sited through transparent processes and there are unnecessary private ventures that are enacted through disingenuous backroom deals with no regard for their real and/or perceived impact.

zur · #15 (**permalink**) 03-29-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alesis

OK, sure-we could decide for ourselves what we want in our back yards.
When I go and get my lunch from essene everyday, I see a casiNO sign at one of our neighbor's homes on 3rd and Monroe, so I'll use the property as a Queen Village example.

The measurement from their corner to the closest corner of the proposed casino location is approx. 3,800 ft., as measured in triangulation to determine the shortest path between the two points.

3800ft. would suggest that the same casiNO neighbor would have say in what bars can and can't go into old city. I certainly don't remember QVNA, Bella Vista United, South Street Headhouse District, or any other group being asked about what should or shouldn't go into Old City.

What's my point? Its not our "BACK YARDS". Would casinos impact traffic, congestion, etc.-sure, which is why each neighborhood group is currently providing input-but to suggest that it is going in our backyard is an exaggeration. Even if we would impose current use regulation constraints on the proposed foxwoods site, no part of Queen Village would be within 1,000 feet of the site, which is why they instrumented the 1500ft law specifically against Foxwoods, which barely touches the SouthEastern most corner of Queen's Village. Of course, on that corner there is a monthly storage facility, so I highly doubt they would be defined as a bereaved neighbor.

Do I want casinos? No, but as neighbors we can't just inflate statistics and conjur falsities to prescribe an agenda, as its more shameful to be misled by a friend than to be deceived by a enemy.

You make sense.

Sadly...the anti-casino people regularly use skewed statistics, select particular articles, and have resorted to distorting facts and making baseless comparisons to prove points.

Comparing us to AC when everyone knows AC was doomed without casinos (see Asbury Park)

Stating 1500 feet as acceptable because 1000 wasn't enough. (Drug Free school zones are 1000 not 1500...so drugs ok, casinos, no)

Saying the tax relief isn't enough.

Igonoring the thousands of construction and permanent jobs the casinos will generate.

Ignoring the millions in tax revenue..

but my personal pet peeve.

Never giving a single alternative to casino construction..

because anything you place there will cause traffic, crime, density, ...people do this. more people cause more of this.

A dozen stores (like what's currently near Pennsport), expanded Ports, or a couple condo towers would cause the same effects...or a whole new mess of issues.

none will produce the same taxes or jobs...the ports could but can't use the land...everything else is a detriment...especially people...they are a break even at best for the city....usually a loss as you need to build new schools, hire more police, fire, build utilities...

alesis · #16 (**permalink**) 03-29-2007, 04:52 PM

All we need now is joedoex to come in and call someone an idiot, commie, stooge for the unions, etc., and this thread will officially turn into the other umpteen casino threads that got shut down.

Marc · #17 (**permalink**) 03-29-2007, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zur

Never giving a single alternative to casino construction..

It is entirely logical to oppose something that one perceives to be bad without suggesting an alternative. One does not require the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zur

usually a loss as you need to build new schools, hire more police, fire, build utilities...

Slots barns don't?

zur · #18 (**permalink**) 03-29-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc

There are essential municipal institutions that are debated and sited through transparent processes and there are unnecessary private ventures that are enacted through disingenuous backroom deals with no regard for their real and/or perceived impact.

and for a city millions in debt (they are..) this is an essential institution.

It wasn't backroom.

They didn't give you a choice because they knew a small number of people willing to fake petitions and generate false fear propaganda could possibly delay this enough the casinos would then just locate elsewhere in PA.... and the state would end up just giving Philadelphia the difference in aid.

The real impact is thousands of jobs, millions in taxes.

The perceived impact is the fear that is baseless and unproven in about 5 different studies conducted by the Feds, states, and universities.

http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/49/2/253.pdf?ck=nck

http://www.phila.gov/gamingadvisory/

Your state elected officials did this.

It wasn't backroom.

Philadelphians have been expecting riverfront gambling for at least 20 years.

zur · #19 (**permalink**) 03-29-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alesis

All we need now is joedoex to come in and call someone an idiot, commie, stooge for the unions, etc., and this thread will officially turn into the other umpteen casino threads that got shut down.

Well all of these threads are basically

Casinos are bad

Yeah

Yeah

Casinos eat your children.

Yeah

Yeah

Put em in the airport! who cares if the planes need to land

Yeah

Yeah

alesis · #20 (**permalink**) 03-29-2007, 05:11 PM

I don't understand why people are so absolute in their talking about this topic.

One side says that no matter what, a zoning law will help.

Another side says that no matter what, state law prevails.

Has anyone heard of a little ol' thing called a supreme court?

The result of both sides' efforts will come down to a coin toss, with an advantage leaning towards the casino since our politicians are on the side of casinos.

I've found caselaw that supports both arguments-some rulings have state sovereign immunity trumping local zoning, while other rulings say that the state cannot impose sovereign immunity for private corporations, just as they can't impose eminent domain for private interests.

Its a toss up.