I think Obama is right on when he describes voters in our state as frustrated and bitter. I know I am. I’ve been fighting the location of two state mandated casinos on our Delaware waterfront for the last two years, along with countless other residents who don’t want to see their family-friendly neighborhoods decimated because of their poor location. The SugarHouse site is less than 200 feet from the nearest residential street. Foxwoods, down the road about two miles, is less than 500 feet from the nearest home. People are trying to raise their children in these neighborhoods. Not only are 79% of Philadelphians in favor of some kind of a buffer zone between neighborhoods and casinos, Mayor Nutter, our City Council, our State Representatives and even our State Senator, who wrote the legislation that foisted these on us, all oppose these two sites. So why are they still coming?
Let’s lay the matter where it belongs, at the feet of Governor Ed Rendell. He got the idea for gambling along the riverfront in the ’90s and hasn’t let go of it. Nor have the casino interests who contributed to his campaigns over the years. Reform legislation can’t get past Democratic leadership. Rendell has made the resources of his office available to those who will help him on gambling issues- read Philadelphia Magazine’s “Gaming the System” for background.
The scandalous news that makes it out of Pennsylvania has to do with the alleged mob ties of casino operator Louis DeNaples, but the twists and turns of licensing awards for Philadelphia casinos are every bit as suspect. Because of the way Act 71 was written, at least that’s the excuse, our State Supreme Court continues to hand down flawed decisions. Though the Supreme Court was persuaded by a legal argument, the result of that argument, just like the result of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board process, in the case of the Philadelphia casinos, is flawed. The harm to Philadelphia is inordinate at these locations. A process to seriously discuss resiting needs to be put into motion.
It’s a political mess that needs a political solution. Several have been advanced, though mostly stopped by Democratic leadership. Despite the fact that Philadelphians have sent literally thousands of letters, faxes and emails to our legislators and our Governor, they are not moved by mere democracy. The Governor has made up his mind, and sides with the casino interests over the interests and wishes of his constituents. If you ask him he will say that the time for debate was when Act 71 was passed. But if you are a Philadelphian, you know there never was a public debate. The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board took public comments, but did not heed them, rendering them meaningless; the overwhelming majority expressed opposition to the sites being considered.
Philadelphians’ opposition to the waterfront casino sites is so strong that in the 2007 primary season, hundreds of volunteers collected more than 27,000 voter signatures to give residents the chance to vote on whether there should be a buffer zone between casinos and neighborhoods. The petitions were challenged by SugarHouse, but Philadelphia Council members voted unanimously, twice, to place the referendum on the ballot (this despite Mayor John Street’s veto; the Street administration favored the casinos, unlike the current Nutter administration). Alas, in response to a suit brought by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, a state agency, the referendum was stripped from our ballot by the State Supreme Court. Justice Castille offered a stirring dissent.
There are various legal strategies in play at the moment. A feature of Act 71 fast tracks all legal disputes to the State Supreme Court, which has returned verdicts favorable to the casino operators consistently. Some say this is because Justices are beholden politically, others say their decisions are consistent with the law as devised by the Pennsylvania State Legislature.
Today our state is a bloody political arena. Ironically, Clinton (endorsed and strongly pushed by Rendell) is currently airing commercials in our state citing the money that Obama has taken from Chicago SugarHouse investor Neil Bluhm. According to the Center for Reponsive Politics, Clinton has taken far more money from gaming interests than Obama. Obama has at least acknowledged that there are negative social costs to casino gambling.
Obama pointed out that Pennsylvanians are disillusioned about economic matters because they see that their concerns don’t mean anything when our lawmakers weigh them against the concerns of their special interest donors. Certainly that is the case in Philadelphia, not only with the gun laws, as has been widely reported, but also with these two Las Vegas slot barns planned by Harrisburg for our riverfront.
The elected officials of many states have done their due dilligence on the issue and rejected gaming initiatives, witness Massachusetts and Kentucky. Though the gaming industry prefers gambling legislation instead of voter input, it doesn’t always get its way. Political skirmishes between casino interests and those trying to protect citizens from unconsidered negative social fallout are going on all around the country.
2008-04-21 11:39:15
