Casino / Zoning Update - Page 4 - PhillyBlog

alesis · #31 (**permalink**) 03-30-2007, 12:18 PM

eh...politicians are always passing bills in the middle of the night on the nation's most patriotic day-get yer' facts straight...hehehe

Quote:

Originally Posted by southport

It wasn't backroom,then what do you call this?
Background on Act 71, the Pennsylvania Gaming Act
...By the way it passed at 2 am on the 4th of July weekend!

new in the hood · #32 (**permalink**) 04-05-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alesis

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.

No, I'm sorry if I was misunderstood. I was expressing my frustration that my location both gives me standing to some and yet also makes me suspect to some.

Helpme · #33 (**permalink**) 04-06-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zur

ah..

The benefits of the casinos from a financial perspective outweighs any detriment (that can't actually be proved) to communities that are 3-5 blocks from the sites.

So what you are saying is that the ends justify the means. That the perceived benefits allows the state to ignore the laws that give the city zoning control. That the perceived benefits allows the state to ignore the PA constitution. That the perceived benefits allows a minority to be trumped simply for the purpose of maintaining or even increasing the size of government.

I don't care how beneficial any development project is for a community it is not worth damaging our freedom and democracy for it. If there is no respect for process then the government is no longer serving the people. The role of Government is not to raise money but to see that the interests of all are given a fair voice in the determination of public policy. The government is to protect the peoples' right to be heard. It is not to purposely prevent them from having their say. Passing the bill at 2 am without public notice or hearing is indicative of how our state has gone beyond governing and now simply rules.

We should be all concerned for our future welfare if the State prevails in this conflict.

And the benfits of gambling to a community have been proven? I don't think so.

Swinefeld · #34 (**permalink**) 04-06-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Pa. gaming board sues on referendum
By Tom Infield
Inquirer Staff Writer

Fulfilling a threat, the state Gaming Control Board filed suit yesterday to block a voter referendum May 15 on sharply limiting the locations for slots casinos in Philadelphia.

The board said the vote on the ballot question, which would ban casinos within 1,500 feet of houses, places of worship, parks and schools, is an attempt to stop any casino from being built anywhere in Pennsylvania's largest city.

A unanimous City Council voted last week to override Mayor Street's veto of the plan to put the question on the primary election ballot.

The board says that in 2004, it was given sole authority by the legislature to choose the location of casinos in Philadelphia. It has predicted that the question, if passed, would be overturned in court.

The board licensed two casinos along the Delaware River in December.

It said it moved into court yesterday to stop the waste of time the referendum would cause.

Board Chairman Tad Decker said in a statement that Pennsylvania would lose $140 million in tax revenue for every six months that the two slots casinos were delayed.

"This ballot issue is being sold by the Philadelphia City Council to the citizens of Philadelphia as a way to take control of the locations of slots facilities, when in reality it is designed to halt the construction of these facilities along with the resulting jobs, economic development and property-tax relief that will be generated," Decker said.

Anne Neeb, the board's executive director, said the referendum was giving Philadelphians "false hope" that the state's authority to choose casino locations could be overruled by city voters.

"In reality, this attempted action by City Council and anti-casino forces" is illegal and unconstitutional, she said in a statement.

Reaction to the lawsuit from Philadelphians opposed to casinos in Fishtown and South Philadelphia was swift and angry.

Daniel Hunter of Casino-Free Philadelphia, an amalgam of 16 civic associations and other groups, said, "Our right to vote is under attack by an out-of-control board.

"What we have here is the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board doing the casinos' dirty work. Our position is, we have the right to vote."

City Councilman Frank DiCicco, whose district takes in the sites for both casinos, said the board was trying to stop Philadelphians from even expressing their opinion.

"The gaming board is doing what the state had already done, which is to try to put a gag order on the city of Philadelphia," he said. "What has caused a lot of this anger - not only on the riverfront but throughout the city - is the consistent way in which the state has made decisions for Philadelphia without giving Philadelphia any say in it."

The board expects to license as many as 14 slots casinos around the state.

DiCicco said the board's action falls into a long-term pattern of the state's taking power from the city. He noted that over the years it has taken over the schools and the Parking Authority, and blocked a measure to ban the purchase of assault rifles.

DiCicco said Council's next move is probably to pick a law firm to fight the suit. He said City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr. should not handle the case because he is on record as saying the referendum cannot pass court muster.

Dan Fee, a spokesman for the planned SugarHouse Casino in Fishtown, noted that the casinos' planners were not parties to the lawsuit.

"Our position," he said, "is that whether legal or not, [the referendum] is a bad idea. It would deny Philadelphia thousands of new jobs and money for our schools and to put police on the street."

Decker is right. "Casino-Free" Philadelphia simply wants to ban casinos in the city. Why else would they name their organization that? But at any rate, the referendum is illegal and will not stand.

hubman · #35 (**permalink**) 04-06-2007, 08:48 PM

As part of a broad and widely supported effort to put this referendum on the ballot, I take exception.

The ballot referendum is NOT illegal; and if the Supreme Court agrees; we will have our say (Yes or No). If they do not it will because we were sold down the river (so to speak).

We may have casinos; we do NOT necessarily need them in the ordained locations. This entire process stinks to high heaven and anything that throws some sand in the gears is welcome.

Vote yes on the referendum!

DrGoogle · #36 (**permalink**) 04-07-2007, 03:01 AM

i dont know if asking the question on the ballot is illegal. I think the PA state will win this one in court after it is voted upon.

we all know the ballot is just a smoke-screen to bar casinos from philly, which is illegal. there is no legal standing for casino-free. but you guys continue to waste your time debating it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swinefeld

Decker is right. "Casino-Free" Philadelphia simply wants to ban casinos in the city. Why else would they name their organization that? But at any rate, the referendum is illegal and will not stand.

hubman · #37 (**permalink**) 04-07-2007, 11:21 AM

CasinoFree is but one of many organizations working to derail the casino deal. Many of these organizations will gladly accept the casinos at an appropriate site (not Foxwoods and Sugarhouse locations).

The ballot merely allows the peopl of Pphiladelphia to declare whether (or not) casinos can be built near homes. Fairly straaightforward and no smoke and mirrors a'tall.

The backroom deals that caused this scenarion to have to happen would make you retch if you knew the details and the payoffs.

Hopefully the Supremem Court of PA will "do the right thing and allow a vote" Otherwise it's just more of the same corrupt, insider dealing, sweetheart, you scratch my back PA politics we have known and hated all these years.

Gladys Kravitz · #38 (**permalink**) 04-08-2007, 10:07 AM

It's about our rights as Philadelphians to have a say in what happens in our city. It's not about banning casinos from the city. I think there are two separate issues here that are blurred by the special interest posters who support Foxwoods and Sugarhouse. There are no doubt people who want NO casinos in Philadelphia, but I'm certainly not one of them, and neither are many of those who are labelled as 'anti casino'.

What I and many others oppose is the absolute sovereignty of a Board out in Harrisbag forcing the two proposals with the worst neighborhood inpacts down the throats of Philadelphians.

There are plenty of other sites for the casinos where the local inpact would be less invasive, and actually be welcomed by overlooked neighborhoods long overdue for their share of development and jobs.

Slot parlor patrons won't even notice that they're on the waterfront, since they won't even leave the slot box until their rolls of quarters are used up.

alesis · #39 (**permalink**) 04-08-2007, 11:56 AM

I pretty much agree with everything except the roll of quarters-they don't take quarters anymore, as experienced by my wife and I when we tried the new Harrah's slotcino.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladys Kravitz

It's about our rights as Philadelphians to have a say in what happens in our city. It's not about banning casinos from the city. I think there are two separate issues here that are blurred by the special interest posters who support Foxwoods and Sugarhouse. There are no doubt people who want NO casinos in Philadelphia, but I'm certainly not one of them, and neither are many of those who are labelled as 'anti casino'.

What I and many others oppose is the absolute sovereignty of a Board out in Harrisbag forcing the two proposals with the worst neighborhood inpacts down the throats of Philadelphians.

There are plenty of other sites for the casinos where the local inpact would be less invasive, and actually be welcomed by overlooked neighborhoods long overdue for their share of development and jobs.

Slot parlor patrons won't even notice that they're on the waterfront, since they won't even leave the slot box until their rolls of quarters are used up.

Helpme · #40 (**permalink**) 04-08-2007, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swinefeld

Decker is right.

Decker is the managing partner at Cozen O'Connor who happens to be the law firm representing Sugarhouse. Hmmmm!

He recused himself when voting on the Sugarhouse application but why didn't he recuse himself when voting AGAINST the other applications. Isn't it the same conflict of interest?

Why would someone with such a conflict actually be selected to head the PGCB?

One charge for the Supreme Court to decide is whether the City Council gave enough notice for a hearing on the referendum. How ironic since the state passed the Gaming Act over the 4th of July weekend in 2004 without any public input what so ever.

The one page bill about background checks at race tracks was amended on its final reading to a 146 page bill legalizing gambling throughout the state and placing two casinos in Philadelphia. The Governor signed it first thing the following Monday morning.

Amending a bill in such a manner is clearly in violation of the PA State Constitution. Did the Supreme Court care? No. In fact they said it was okay to violate the Constitution in this manner. They received their pay raise a month later. The payraise was was passed over the 2005 July 4th Weekend, and in the same unconstitutional manner as the Gaming Act. I guess if you can get away with it once, why not do it again? Eventually the pay raise bill was repealed.

For no other reason than how these bills were "passed", the city must not allow casinos on these sites.

Funny how the