- Shaping a Marcellus Shale Tax that is Fair to Pennsylvanians
- Philly Inquirer Cleans up Philly Politics More than Mayor Nutter Ever Would
- Bloom to face Brownlee and Kernaghan in the General
- Bloom Get's On The Bus
- For the Record | Feudalism
- Drinking Coffee Liberally, Mount Airy: 8/29
- PREMIERE: Infection in Our Health Care System
- Rally Saturday--join Rep. Patrick Murphy in supporting Express Scripts workers
- The Faces of Folks Standing Up to Natural Gas Drillers
- PHA GUARDS SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE “OTHER CARL GREENE”
The Casino Fight Goes On
Submitted by Dan U-A on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 5:59am.
It has been a busy week, but, I wanted to use my miniature bully pulpit to talk for a second about Foxwood’s huge defeat at the hands of Chinatown and their merry band of activists.
Here is my basic take on all of this:
1) The defeat of Foxwoods lurch into Center City was an incredible victory for the people of the No Casino in the Heart of Our City coalition. Think about what Chinatown and friends were up against: The Governor, the Mayor, Councilman DiCicco and assortment of state politicians. This looked like tilting at windmills when it began. Instead, it is a huge, incredible win for a community that was basically on an island. It really is incredible. First the stadium, now Foxwoods. I guess it is time to stop trying to bulldoze your way into Chinatown?
2) It is OK to note that this is also a sad turn for South Philly. I agree with Helen that the more Foxwoods ping pongs around like a punch drunk boxer, the more weakened it is, and the less likely it is to build. But, there is no denying that neighborhoods surrounding Pennsport are understandably freaked out and saddened by this news. It is a simple reality that when a casino is in your backyard, you care about it more. (I know Trump trying to open a slots barn a quarter of a mile from my childhood home-and my parents’ current home- made the casino fight very real.) One of the worst parts of the casino process was basically forcing 5 (and then 6) neighborhoods to square off against each other when trying to keep casinos away from their homes.
3) Connected to that, the behavior of politicians in response to this all has so far been really disappointing. The general response of people such as Frank DiCicco has been to slam the decision in a way that is pretty divisive. Here is the thing- it is OK if someone thinks the waterfront is a worse place for a casino than Center City. But, the other reality is that a lot of these politicians are supposed to represent BOTH of these communities. And yet, the rhetoric in the last 6 months or so was them telling their constituents in Chinatown to shut up and accept a casino for the good of the city, and their constituents on the river.
Chinatown didn’t listen, and did what communities should do: they fought like hell for the fabric of their neighborhoods, and won. Yet, when they won, they were greeted with more derision from their own representatives. From an outsider’s perspective, that just doesn’t feel right. Yes, yes, I get that they think this is a bad decision. But, your own constituents just fought a huge emotional battle, with none of your help, and they won. There should be at least a measure of grace in those responses acknowledging what they did, not statements that make it seem as if people on the river’s concerns about their homes trump their neighbor's five miles away.
5) So where does this leave us? Maybe this isn’t even a possibility, but, is it time for a grand bargain? I don’t know if it is remotely feasible legislatively for the casino to be shoved down to the airport. But, at a time when Foxwoods will likely never be weaker, is it time to find out?
I hate casinos. They are a regressive tax, and they increase addiction in their neighbors. But, I also believe that at some point, a casino will be built. Is it demonstrably worse for Philadelphians if there is a casino at the airport and in Chester, versus just Chester?
great run down dan
dan, this is a great piece, especially the way you capture how neighborhoods, often represented by the same people, have been pitted against one another. and like you, I'm really proud of the anti-casino folks, and especially chinatown, for not backing down and forcing a retreat from Foxwoods. Good onya.
one quibble: hoping for "a measure of grace" from Philadelphia politicians is like hoping your goldfish will learn how to do algebra.
writing posts at 5am
Even for me, that is a lot of typos...
One minor point
Sugar House is plowing ahead with their tent first, real casino later plan. The economy and saturation has hurt the whole gaming industry but Sugar House does not seem to have the same financial problems Foxwoods does. Still there is an argument that proximity to 76 and I-95 for the airport makes the airpost and Fishtown a more geographically varied set of destinations - even as it moves one away from neighborhoods. Best would be both away from neighborhoods.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Why can't we just get a revision passed to the Gaming Act...
Remove the 10 mile barrier for Philadelphia County. Problem solved.
Foxwoods can develop on the wasteland between the Pratt and Girard Point bridges since it's cheap, it's "waterfront" (mostly sewage in the ground), and nobody can argue that it's not accessible since the car-loving culture will have easy access to it.
Casino patrons will be invisible to most Philadelphians, especially those in the civic-set. SEPTA can run a connector bus for all those Hundredaires who want to blow their paycheck from Pattison station. Just like it already does now for the Chester casino at the Chester transportation center and Philadelphia Park at the Frankford Transportation Center.
It will be the suburbanites and through-travelers on I-95 and I-76 who will deal with the traffic issues.
A question, Dan (or Helen)
Not meant to be divisive. Really, I'm asking out of ignorance. By what measure do you determine that the collapse of the efforts to locate the casinos on Market Street equals a victory for anti-casino-in-Chinatown activists?
Regardless of the answer, I am happy for this collapse. While we would be far better off with no casinos in Philly, as a non-resident of either neighborhood, I see South Philly as marginally better than Market Street; that is, assuming that the casino-building activists (which really is what they are, isn't it, why do we only call the good guys activists?), aren't fatally wounded by the Market Street location collapse.
But I would really like to see this as a victory for the good guys, and need to overcome my inbred skeptical nature. So how can this victory be quantified? And more importantly, what lessons can be drawn from the nature of the victory about what makes for successful activism (by good guys) in our fair City?
Trying to be nice but fair
No Casino In the Heart of Our City, which included Chinatown activists, succeeded in showing they are every bit as determined, every bit as active and committed as folks in any other part of the city on this issue. That convinced the powers that be (basically the gaming board) they would face a lot of community opposition on Market St, just as they did in South Philly. That is an accomplishment. They negated any assumption that Market St. would be an easier sell.
But the motivation to switch back to South Philly is a reflection of an economic calculation not out of respect to anticasino activists from any neighborhood. They still aren't really listening to anyone but that green back dollar bill. Getting the casino to move again will mean convincing both the license holder and the gaming board the easier course to getting the tax revenue comes from moving it.
The reason Foxwoods was lured onto Market St. is because they believed it would make them more money and the people doing the luring (Rendell, Nutter) believed Market St. would be easier to leverage into what they believed to be "better" (notice I did not say ideal) urban planning than the site on the waterfront. If the Convention Center and all of Philly's mass transit were on the riverfront, Rendell and Nutter would likely have stayed there in the first place. Likewise, the reason Foxwoods got pushed back to the riverfront was because the gaming board no longer believed Foxwoods had enough money to buy out Gramercy - end of story. Its hard to believe the same gaming board that threatened anti-casino activists and suspended the meeting to try to silence them at the very same meeting the move was announced is basing their decisions on the input of the same people they were trying to silence.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
seconded
Just because D.E. II rarely agree on anything, I'd also like to second his skepticism on this issue.
The failure of the Center City location seems to be more the result of the inability to get the owner of the upper floors of the Strawbridge's building to agree to the use of the first floor as a casino than any other reason. Perhaps the landlord's intransigence had something to do with the work of the casino activists, but as far as I can tell, there's absolutely no evidence that the landlord's decision had anything to do with the work of the casino activists.
Certainly the comments today are all about the Pequot's finances
From Jennifer Lin of the Inky
The three sucessive deadlines that the Foxwoods team - that includes the Pequots but also PREIT uber-developer Ron Rubin and Comcast-Spectacor chair Ed Snider - need to meet now is interpreted by some as designed to fail. October 16 -how will they get 1,500 slots up and running in a tent by next year. Dec. 1 what the final project will look like and March 1 secure financing for the whole completed project. Any failure of any of the three could end up in a loss of the license.
Boy that "person familiar with the project" sure lends a lot of authority. ;) However, assuming thats true, assuming that the political mess amongst the Pequots and the still tight credit markets mean that Foxwoods drops the ball for failing to put together deal to pay for a "final project" in time - then the next step for the gaming board is to reaward the license. And as much as we would like them to just give up the ghost on Philadelphia, its important to ask where, thinking the way the gaming board does - not how we would like them to, does the license go now?
Does it go to the loud guy on TV with bad hair in East Falls / Allegheney West? Does the group who wanted the old incinerator site on the waterfront get it? Can we actually convince the state legislature to budge on the 10-mile rule and put it at the airport? Again that only seems possible if the state legislature and the gaming board are actually convinced that putting it there will be easier/more profitable than one of the plans already submitted.
My guess is that if Foxwoods is shut out that the way the gaming board views things now, Trump's plan jumps to the lead. But I'd also like to hear other's analysis - albeit from the likely perspective of the gaming board, not what we would prefer.
These are questions that need real analysis, maybe a hair less back-patting.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Our National Symbol
Can't someone just install a bald eagle nest on the site to permanently get the project moved ala the Produce Terminal saga?
Tax a casino and it might tax ya back
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/casinos/x1595417225/Foxwoods-charging-cus...
Not to nitpick
But I don't think Foxwoods was defeated by Chinatown activists.
It was defeated over two simple reasons... the owner of the top floors of the Strawbridge & Clothier building objected and threatened to sue PREIT, and Foxwoods in CT is teetering on bankruptcy.
The first item was the bigger deal-killer because it would pit two owners of the same building against each other, so the downstairs owner chose not to sign a lease, which Foxwoods needs to move in.
Chinatown residents might have contributed somewhat to this empirically, especially since PREIT and Chinatown have been physical neighbors for a very long time.
is it so hard to...
Is it so hard to explore how citizen organizing got us to this point? Although we don't know why Gramercy dug in so hard we do know that casino proposals became very controversial due to citizen organizing over the past 40 months. We know that a number of groups being led by Chinatown organizing with support from city and city-wide groups held massive protests (on November 1st), collected tens of thousands of signatures and earned hundreds of media stories which intensified the opposition and defined the issue even more strongly as casinos being predatory and bad for the economy. We don't know why Gramercy dug in but it is logical that they learned something from all the attention that citizen organizing brought to the issue and decided to not play ball (I am sure they were offered a lot, perhaps a stake in the casino itself). Perhaps they see the same thing that citizens see-an exploitative and wealth extractive business model that pays for its political support and that citizens rightfully object to. It is not hard to think that businesspeople learned the same things as the rest of us.
When the casinos are stopped or are shut down in our city many people will look to the changes in the economy as the cause. But these were done deals right? Pittsburgh's casino, also owned by proposed Sugarhouse casino owner (how did the billionaire from Chicago end up owning two casinos in the state, against State law?) and licensed at the same time is up and running. Why? Because, despite the original owner having financial difficulty, the casino faced limited opposition and primarily only on design issues. Those of us who have been organizing against casinos clearly changed the political context and now with increased competition within the state and increased competition ramping up in our neighboring states it is becoming clearer that all the promises made by these casino operators are false promises that will never materialize.
One of the things that got us here was citizen organizing through campaigns and actions and inspiring, at times, principled action by our elected officials (none of whom were against a casino on Market Street and none of whom currently oppose casinos in Philadelphia). It is citizen organizing that has gained us our greatest advances as a society and it will continue to be so on the casino and other issues that advance economic, social or racial justice.
If that were true
Then Pennsport Civic would have already gotten the thing killed, and they were close enough to "Fumoland" at 12th and Tasker to get it done.
And Sugarhouse is still a go.
CasiNO never really explored the alternatives like asking for an exception to the 10 mile rule so these cash boxes could be sited far enough way from residents that nobody would really care.
Instead they're opting for acidic vitriol, which can only go so far before *Democratic* politicians in PA simply tune it out. The same voters complaining about the casinos voted the politicians who are installing the casinos.
And for the record, I am casino-agnostic. I don't care one way or the other if we get them. I live not far from Philadelphia Park [10 minute drive as the crow files] and I can't even tell it exists.
This guy is a piece of work
Chairman of the House Gaming Oversight Committee: "I would support as many slot machines as we could get."
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20091003_a...