- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
Golly Gee, We Love Casinos!
Submitted by Dan U-A on Fri, 05/25/2007 - 8:43am.
So, the election is over, and shockingly, so is the opposition of many City Council members to casinos.
A package of bills introduced yesterday by lame-duck Councilman Juan Ramos would, if passed, give the city's blessing to the proposed SugarHouse casino in Fishtown.
The bills, which were introduced by Ramos at Mayor Street's request, are a sharp departure from Council's pre-election casino moves. Until yesterday, Council members had unanimously sided with anti-casino forces in vote after vote. They had even voted 17-0 to put the ill-fated casino referendum on the May 15 primary ballot - before courts removed it.
There was no certainty that the Ramos legislation had the votes to pass. But it was clear nonetheless that Council members - most of them now safe bets to return for new terms in January - were rethinking their blanket opposition to the proposed slots parlors.
You know that Council prerogative that everyone always talks about? Where Council does not introduce a development bill in the district of another Council person? Well, while it is strenuously followed in general, it was conveniently just violated by lame-duck Juan Ramos, who introduced the bill.
As Patrick Kerkstra notes, now that the election is over, it is not just Ramos who is backtracking:
Blondell Reynolds-Brown:
What appeals to me about the casinos is the additional dollars they will bring to the Philadelphia public school system, and we have to be responsible and acknowledge that.
Sigh. Nothing like relying on people blowing their money so that kids can have books in school. What kind of incentive structure do you think that creates?
Frank Rizzo:
I think that people realize that inevitably the casinos are going to happen... We need to make sure we get the best package we can get.
Rizzo, of course, is actually facing a real challenge in November, so he might back off. For a few months.
(Kerkstra also notes others changing their tune, like Darrell Clarke.)
Give Frank DiCicco a little credit, however. This is his district, and post-election, he appears to be willing to continue the fight.
I think getting rid of City Council's absolute veto power on development within their own district makes some sense. That said, it is particularly irritating that it is only when the really powerful want it gone, that it appears that an outgoing member of City Council is making an exception.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
And don't forget our
And don't forget our Councilman who now can safely vote for the Casinos since he has no opposition.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Clarke is wrong!
Period.
Clarke, Councilmatic Privilege, & the Boy Scouts
If Councilman Clarke votes for this piece of legislation, Councilmatic Privilege should be thrown out the window; ESPECIALLY the Councilmatic privilege that Darrell Clark has used for so long allowing the Boy Scouts to use a city owned building despite the city ordinance banning discrimination of gays and lesbians.
Clarke has resisted action on the Boy Scouts and their building because it sits in his district. DiCicco, who probably has the gayest district, has withstood pressure and allowed Clarke to make the move on this legislation. If Clarke is going to sell out the people of DiCicco's district, then Frank should feel no qualms in introducing a bill kicking out the Boy Scouts of a city owned building.
Councilman DiCicco deserves
Councilman DiCicco deserves more than a little credit.
Since the sighting decisions have been made, he has worked his tail off to slow this process and have some sense of reason put into this mess. Unfortunately, state legislators and other council members are not entirely in agreement.
Not only does Frank have to do this, but he has to balance the concerns/fear of people from the North (near Sugarhouse) and South (near Foxwoods) of his district. This is not easy to do either. Sometimes he doesn't make everyone happy--but how can he.
There is a perception that I want to dispell too--that is that the people in the north would be more likely to accept a casino than the people in the south. This is entirely speculation. Having talked with many friends and peers in the north, they are as adamantly opposed to having a casino at their door steps as the people in the south.
I'd say that, if any of the
I'd say that, if any of the district council people vote for this bill, the district council privilege is dead. And, if I were DiCicco, I'd start introducing bill after bill in each district if this thing passes.
First things I want is the Barnes situation fixed. That requires someone to introduce legislation that will affect Blackwell's district for the new Youth Study Center.
Obviously, I'm upset about this whole thing. Though, I give Blackwell credit for showing the First District some respect.
I think we are missing one other target here
From the Inquirer story:
"The bills, which were introduced by Ramos at Mayor Street's request. . ."
Nice to see our lame-duck Mayor took time off from doing nothing about our increasing murder rate to interfere with city council. Wasnt Street the one who, during the elections, said that candidates shouldnt interfere with city council? Glad to see he is following his own advice.....
Excellent point, Klein.
Excellent point, Klein. Street has always wanted casinos and he is the ultimate lame duck.
The mind boggles
Or, perhaps, I shouldn't be surprised.
What Blondell Reynolds Brown fails to realize is that what she's describing is, in effect, a transfer tax from the poor to the poor. In other words, it's purely illogical from both an economic + moral standpoint.
Then again, I've long since ceased to expect humans to behave logically,
-Z
I'm glad you jumped in. I
I'm glad you jumped in. I was about to write yet another comment.
Hey--Blondell was endorsed by all these progressive groups. Maybe it is time to jump in her a bit. Hey, she even says this in the City Paper this week:
"If it had not been for the support from Liberty City Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club, Philly for Change and West Philly and Wynnefield," she said, "I would not have won."
Isn’t she the one that
Isn’t she the one that basically was trying to carve up Fairmount Park into little pieces and sell it off to the highest bidder? How the hell some people get support from the progressive community is beyond me.
Thanks for putting this up
As a Fishtown resident, I've been following this process for a while, so it doesn't surprise me that the underhanded tactics continue. Lame duck councilman and mayor shoving casinos down our throat? That's just par for the course.
I hope everyone has had a chance to read the Philadelphia magazine article about the backstory of Act 71. If you haven't, here's the link: http://phillymag.com/articles/gaming_the_system
Counterpoint
I'd heard that plenty of people in Fishtown were in favor of Sugarhouse b/c of the jobs it would bring. May I assume that this has not been your impression of things?
-Z
Conterpoint to counterpoint
As far as I've seen, there has been no comprehensive attempt on the part of those trying to push this develpment through to evaluate the support in the affected communities. There is no excuse for that.
And perhaps even more importantly, there has been no comprehensive attempt on the part of those trying to push this development to inform the most affected communties in a non-biased fashion, what the likely costs and benfits of building casinos in their communities would be. There has been a publicity campaign conducted by the stakeholders who clearly will benefit financially, and there has been a back-room political deal conducted by politicians whose job should be to act based on an informed public's voiced sentiment.
You heard wrong
There are some people in favor of casinos. At a recent FNA meeting there was a vote and approximately a 60% majority was opposed to the Sugarhouse location. The percentage of Riverside Fishtown residents (east of Girard and closer to the site) against the casinos is substantially higher. Sugarhouse reps promised money to some local institutions (St. Lauretinus School and Fishtown Athletic Club of the top of my head), so some people organized FACT (forget what it stands for) to negotiate with Sugarhouse to make sure that there will be money in it for them. They've gotten plenty of press, but as far as I know, FACT comprises of 20 people at most. I'm sure Jethro can fill in the blanks if I'm missing something.
coverage and context
I remain hopeful that the Council is not going to cave to the back-door corrupt politics that is exemplified by how casinos have been proposed in Philadelphia. Check out June's Phila. Magazine, http://www.phillymag.com/articles/gaming_the_system/ , for insight into how Rendell, indicted Senator Fumo, Sprague and Decker planned this all out in what I hope becomes the way things used to get done in Philly. The casinos do not belong in neighborhoods and they do not belong in our city. Philly's Ballot Box demonstrated the overwhelming support for the 1,500 buffer which Councilman DiCicco will continue to champion and I would expect the rest of the Council to vote with him for the buffer zone.
A lot of damage can be one in this lame-duck period. Michael Nutter should pay careful attention to what the Council does during this period. He has publicly opposed casinos in neighborhoods including the siting of the proposed Sugarhouse and Foxwoods and if things go the way Ramos and Street want them this is going to land on Nutter's doorstep-a nice welcome mat for a Mayor committed to ending corruption and reducing crime.
And in terms of the north-Sugarhouse has supported the creation of a new pro-casino group in Fishtown, called FAct. This has been done through private meetings and was launched by pro-Sugarhouse residents, supported by ken Snyder (yes former spokesperson for Fumo and the Citizens' Alliance who works for Sugarhouse) days after Fishtown Neighbors Assocation held a democratic vote that went against Sugarhouse thus making FNA opposed to the casino. Lawsuits by residents in the surrounding area, including by my wife and I and our neighbors continue to challenge a casino being proposed so close to our homes. Sugarhouse casino is also in Northern Liberties which is strongly opposed to Sugarhouse and casinos.
Finally, the Delaware River Neighborhood Alliance, made up of 24 civic groups (both along the river but also in center city and to the west) remains firmly opposed to the casinos and is continuing its moratorium on negotiations, which are now entering their sixth month. The north remains strongly opposed-we have always faced different odds-with three casinos originally proposed in our area and City Council boundaries that make little sense and that place Sugarhosue in the 1st District but residents like me across the street in the 5th. It makes finding strong representation very difficult.
This is all context and part of the story that could and should be in the Inquirer.
Philly's Ballot Box
Uh, no it didn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
My guess, there is
My guess, there is overwhelming support for the principle.
While the overall number may not be as high as you would like, 95% of people who took their time to register their thoughts on the matter voted for the referendum.
Either way, the folks at CFP deserve much credit for putting together the Ballot Box concept in about three weeks. It was impossible for them to go city-wide and have a polling place in every division.
Ultimately, the Pa. Supreme Court took it from the ballot. I am not even sure if there was an actual controversy for them to decide at the time. But, in any event, Philadelphians were denied the right to have a say and people like Jethro did their best to compensate for the failures of our Commonwealth.
well argued point
You are right, you convinced me. I guess I will join Ramos and Street in their celebration of corruption and back room deals. Way to go lame-ducks, woo-hoo.
I will address Gaetano's and
I will address Gaetano's and your post in this one.
I don't have a problem with PBB. People can voice their opinion in any medium they choose.
The issue is that PBB results mean close to zero. It was an optional poll that most people would have to take the initiative to answer. The flaw is that it is conducive to the people that are fighting against something. As shown, very few people will go out of their way to poll support about something that is already legal.
As an example, I am against the whole process that has been going on with the casinos, but I am not for a blanket 1500 foot ban. I didn't go and vote against it.
I looked at the results and there were only seven divisions even represented in the 5th district (not counting phone and online).
If you want something accurate, do a legitimate poll.
If the PBB makes you think that 95% of the City are for a 1500 foot ban on casinos, I am going to go out on a limb and say you are sorely mistaken.
The PBB is not an accurate representation and you can not derive anything from it, short of that there are 13,000 people adamantly against the casinos.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Juan Ramos' Hypocrisy
At a debate among at-large candidates held by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the candidates were asked whether Council's action on casinos and other issues was a response to the pressure of an upcoming election.
My response was to say that my faith in the power of elections had been reinforced by Council's actions on so many issues including casinos. In fact, I said, I think we should have Council elections every year.
(I don't recall wehther I mentioned the 311 issue as an example at this debate, but I know I did at others. To his credit, Jim Kenney had been talking about instituting a 311 system for some time. But only in an election year did he find much support for the idea among his colleauges.)
Juan Ramos was angered by my response and denied that the election had anything to do with Council's actions on casinos.
GIVE IT A BREAK, MARC!
1) Juan actually voted against a DiCicco anti-casino zoning bill in a 16-1 vote. He did support the veto override after he realized that the vote would be 16-1 also. But he did oppose an anti-casino bill BEFORE the election. That's why he reacted that way to your comment.
2)No one on Council ever challenged Kenney's 311 system idea. There was testimony that City Councils in other cities resisted the idea.
You still got issues!
WWGjr
Cowardace is the problem
Cowardace is the problem with Juan Ramos. He is leaving office and he still feels the need to stick it to us. Surely, he represents us, at-large, for another 7 months, but Philadelphians rejected him. Maybe he should just wrap-up and go home.
Fortunately, good City Council people like Councilmen Goode and Kenney would never be moved to introduce legislation that will have a negative impact on the 250,000 Philadelphians who live along the water. Particularly at this mayor's bidding.
Ramos is a flunkie for Mayor Street. What a nice legacy.
As for Juan
You're right Gaetano, he's out of our lives in another 7 months. But don't be naive, Juan lost because of voter confusion with another Ramos. Almost certain he would have won if not for the lack of knowledge between the two Ramos's. But its over and now for the first time in almost 3 decades, we don't have a latino in an elected office position. And we say we're Progressives??? (Congrats to Maria BTW, but she only represents the 7th).
Casinos=tons of jobs...period.
Well, whether it was
Well, whether it was confusion or not, Juan lost. Period.
You say there is no Latino in an elected position, then say that Maria is one, but only represents the 7th. I don't understand that at all.
Honestly, whatever Juan is does not change the fact that his bill will hurt homeowners and families.
How about this equation:
(traffic) + (increased crime) + (increased gambling addiction) + (increased domestic violence) + (increased traffic) + (lower property values) = casinos in communties and/or neighborhoods
You don't get it. You can have your casinos, just not across the street from homes, or schools, or community centers, or churches. If you were half as interested in protecting Philadelphians as you are Juan Ramos, perhaps you'd understand that.
ME?? Protect Juan??
LOL. I admit, I'm one of just a few who actually is concerned about hispanic issues, and appreciated what the former councilman was doing for the latino community throughout the city. As for Maria, again, she only represents the 7th. While she will be voice for the latinos, again, she is not At Large, just the 7th and I know she will do a phenomenal job in her district (Tho having a latino in a district seat and At Large would have been a wonderful scenario).
Gaetano I do agree about it being away from our churches, houses and community places. Tho Sugarhouse has already committed to donating 1 million dollars to community groups in the city. I'm on the side of jobs for the middle class that are desperately needed. I'm not an advocate of gambling, but restaurants, hotels, are all great for the citys income. And if people want to gamble, there are places in philly to gamble, if they want prostitutes, they're right up Huntington Park, if you want mafia action, its around....lets not be so naive as to what is already going on in this city.
from the Phila. Magazine article
The jobs and revenue claims are not in any way backed up by any studies of these specific casino proposals or their cumulative impact. And it is not tons of jobs being proposed here, in fact Sugarhouse and Foxwoods could easily cost more jobs than create due to how they are (not) being planned. But, specific cost/benefit studies of the cumulative effect of the proposed casinos has not been done (yet)-wouldn't it be nice if we had public policies and city planning that was based in this kind of analysis rather than claims by the proponents? Here is some background from the Phila. Magazine piece:
On a community scale, casinos are just larger versions of a slot machine: They’re calibrated to take in more from a community than they give out. They give out a certain amount for jobs, entertainment, free perks, charitable donations, community improvements — but they always draw out that amount plus a profit. Otherwise, they couldn’t survive.
If player losses were the only cost, one could say casinos only cost the suckers — like a movie theater that charges 10 bucks for five bucks’ worth of bad movies — so hey, it’s capitalism. But Grinols says the true costs are much, much higher.
Some of the costs are obvious, because they happen on the street: the cost of crimes like traffic violations, burglary and prostitution, which create a need for more police. But the economist says casinos make 30 to 50 percent of their money on losses by “problem gamblers,” and problem gamblers create deeper, more expensive problems, like increases in divorce, bankruptcy, suicide, white-collar crime and lost work time. “There’s a rise in stress-related sickness, anxiety and depression,” Grinols says. “The cost is enormous.”
In the end, he says, for every dollar of benefits casinos bring to Philadelphia, they will cost us more than three.
Well, that is inherently one
Well, that is inherently one of the problems I have with the location. You want to maximize revenue from people outside the region ... you don't want it to primarily be a tool for money redistribution.
Until I am convinced otherwise, I am still pushing my idea that sticking one at the Disney Hole at 8th and Market is the best location. You build an elegant tower instead of a sprawling complex.
It is in the heart of the tourist area and the Convention Center as well as the SEPTA transit hub. You maximize use of the current public transit infrastructure as well as money form non-local sources.
The trick is to be heavy handed on the building design. This is because casinos tend to be built to keep people inside and you will want this building to embrace the neighborhood and become part of the tourism industry.
Unfortunately a 1500 foot ban would obviously keep that from working as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Is $9.00 an hour middle
Is $9.00 an hour middle class--it is hardly living wage!
You have used the word "naive" to describe critiques of Juan and you on two occassions. Though, I do not know why. You are using the existence of criminal conduct to condone the placement of casinos by people's homes. That, my friend is naive. I didn't know we made our rules based on what criminals are doing. I thought we did it based on public safety and what good people need.
How about this one, using your logic: I'm a hunter. I can't hunt deer or bird in Philadelphia. But, people are shooting guns all the time in this city--based on that. shouldn't I be allowed to go after those deer in Fairmount Park or Cobbs Creek Park? I mean, guns are being fired anyway.
Yes, there are prostitutes in Huntington Park--but, does that mean we should have prostitutes on Southern Columbus Blvd. or anywhere else.
But, that is beside the point. Homes, Homes, Homes! Are the point.
9 bucks?
The union construction workers who will build these casino's i assure you will make more than 9 bucks an hour. Even so, its about jobs with benefits, a wage thats guaranteed to increase year after year and of course a union pension. We're not just talking black jack dealers here.
The Convention Center, Our Politics, and Governor Rendell
not the casinos.
And that I think is one of the few things keeping this whole casino house of cards alive. Constuction jobs at the casinos themselves are a fraction of what the convention center expansion will provide. Casino money is supposed to provide the state share of the money for the convention center.
(Expanding the convention center is a very good idea, by the way. We need it to compete with other major covention cities.)
That's the way we do things in Philly, pile one deal on top of another on top of a third.
Casino opponents have to keep making a big enough nuisance of themsleves until someone (Rendell, perhaps), decides that they are tired of waiting for casinos and finds another deal on which to pile the convention center.
Maybe the PA Turnpike deal. No, wait, that's supposed to fund our roads and bridges and public transit.
Wait, a second. How about selling bonds for the convention center, and to fix our roads, andtoe xpand our public transit system and raising the state income tax to pay for it. Somehow, in the deep recesses of my mind, I seem to remember that this was how government used to be run, back when using government to serve the common good was legitimate, pay taxes to run the government was legitimate, and politicians didn't look for backdoor ways to raise money.
I year and a half ago I wrote on my blog that the governor could use his coming massive election victory (and his massive fundraising advantage) to make a case for progressive government, help elect a legislature that would support him, and actually begin to show people around the country that government can play a positive role in making our lives better.
The mess we are in today with casinos and transit can be traced back to Rendell's unwillingness to try to challenge the reigning anti-government mood in the country.
Expanding the convention
Expanding the convention center is a good idea on what economic basis? I mean, I know I have heard the 'we need to compete thing.' But I have also heard it described as making "less than zero economic sense." How many extra dollars are we actually bringing into the City as a result of it, versus how much are we spending?
And, what kinds of other projects
would be more beneficial to the community?
Would you rather see the money spent for the convention center, or creating a better business corridor along Chelten Avenue, for example? How much did the previous convention center project improve the circumstances of the huge numbers of poor people living in poverty in this City? Has there even been a comprehensive study that evaluated the benfits versus the costs?
What do city planners say about what makes sense in terms of long-term development projects? Does it makes sense to keep pumping money into large-scale and highly concentrated Center City projects, in areas that are already devoid of a more widely integrated form of development, or does it makes sense to spread the money over developments in larger geographical areas and create infrastructure that integrates more into Philadelphians' lives on a daily basis? Those types of projects would also create revenue.
As with the casinos, to simply say that spending on the convention center would generate revenue isn't enough; you need to look at such a project against other projects that won't get funded withe same money.
Needless to say, I'm highly dubious.
Good questions
I recall seeing some numbers about a year ago detailing the number of conventions we could bring to Philadlephia that would otherwise by-pass us and an estimate of how much money would be generated by these conventions--in terms of hotel, restaurant, and entertainment revenues and the taxes they bring in, would pretty soon pay for it.
But, you know, now that I stop and think, you and DE II are asking some good questions. Or, to put the point another way, I've gotten more sceptical about big Philadelphia projects in the last year and my year old judgment could be wrong.
Let's see if we can find the numbers and scrutinize them.
The Convention Center actually killed the District Council power
before the casino project killed it again (if, indeed, Ramos' bill goes through.) And that may be another reason to question the value of anything related to convention center expansion. It's the same group of hotel developers, building trades and bond underwriters and lawyers behind casinos that have always been behind the convention center project. And when they get together, there is no power they allow getting in their way. In the mid eighties when the powers that be decided they would brook no more foolishness from Councilman Tayoun who opposed the project in his district, they found someone else to introduce the legislation. Tayoun opposed the project to the end and his opposition was swept aside as so much saw dust.
There is a lot of publicly
There is a lot of publicly available information about the relative size of the Philadelphia Convention Center versus other convention centers. The pitch to increase the convention has been made for a number of years, so the data is certainly out there, maybe not in cyberspace.
For a long time what was preventing Philly from gaining more conventions was the number of hotel rooms available. (I think that issue has been answered.) But larger conventions or multiple conventions in one day require larger meeting space, and hospitality is now a big industry for Philadelphia.
The City loses conventions to other cities and did not pick up as many after New Orleans could not host them.
But I think that the biggest issue to getting more repeat conventions is the perception of the labor issue at the Convention Center.
While there may be other things to spend the money on, the question is, in terms of an investment will the net present value of the investment exceed other income producing items. That analysis, that companies employ everyday, is difficult for municipalities, b/c most of the spending does not result in income production -- better schools will lead to more tax dollars many years from know, as an example.
I don't think that just because there are some who will profit that we should forget that average everyday folks who live in the City work in those hotels and it is a significant part of the City's economy.
The benefits of the C.C. were vastly overblown
An alleged multiplier affect of 3.0 was widely tossed around as a given, but a fine Council research staff which included Michael Masch at the time, could find no justification for it. The jobs that were created were and are second rate, and the City was foisted with an annual debt service and operation subsidy which it couldn't afford. Maybe there were no better investments that could have been made with the money, but I doubt it. There was certainly no research done to figure that out, one way or the other. And the reality is that when big business, construction unions, lawyers and underwriters gets together on a project, there is never a debate about other uses for the money. Research gets purchased, experts are produced who say what they're supposed to say, and the thing gets built.
Faulty casino math
Your "period" is misplaced.
Even if we take all the basic arguments favoring Casinos as valid, there are two basic problems with your equation.
The first is that there is a basic problem with the ways that the Casino initiative has been put together - essentially railroaded through without community input: no meaningful involvement and certainly not the acquistion of approval.
It is time for politicians to stop conducting development projects in such a fashion. There are far better methods for development that are being used all over the country with great success, and which involve citizens, government officials, planners and businesspeople in a collaborative process. It is time to stop leaving out the voices of the most important stakeholder.
Second, your equation lacks any relative contextualization. Casinos equal what kinds of jobs? Casinos equal how many and what types of jobs as compared to what other comparable intitiatives?
Do you have any confidence that the politicians who greased the wheels of government to push casino development through, politicians who have been very closely associated with specific and powerful lobbying entities for years and years, have done a thorough job of evaluating the benefits of casinos (again, assuming those benefits you as you do despite the reality that they are highly debated by knowedgeable sources) relative to other potential projects?
If so, can you show any evidence whatsoever that such research was conducted?
Otherwise, given the lack of depth in evaluating mathematical relationships, I suggest that you stay away from the casinos if they get built. You'll lose your shirt.
I'm absolutely impressed (sarcasm)
And that witty comment at the end (ghasp), I really was humbled..haha. But I do agree with you on the whole process of how the casino's got here. The People should be the final say with endeavors such as a Casinos, (tho it does contradict the whole free enterprise notion that makes the US so attractive). Bottom line is, I agree with you and I share with you the fears of how this could negatively affect society.
I am also a person who is concerned about a city economy that needs jobs, period. Surely contractors, construction workers, maintinence, dealers, cooks, bartenders, waitresses, entertainers etc. are all jobs that will be created because of these new casinos. How can we argue that? Its a new business that needs people, therefore people will be hired. If you disagree with the casino's for moral reasons, than stick with it, but to attempt to argue how new casinos won't create jobs, its just silly.
You seem to have missed my point (no sarcasm)
I'm not arguing against casinos on the basis of morality, nor do I think the only problem is that they've been railroaded through.
To simply say casinos equals jobs fails to consider the "opportunity costs" of this kind of project, or to weigh the benefits of those jobs against costs to the community.
If you are concerned about the City's economy, and you have fear about the negative effects of casinos on the community, why do you isolate the benefits of the jobs created from analysis of what other kinds of better jobs could be created through other initiatives, and why do you fail to weigh the benefits of the jobs created against the likely costs?
As for Juan
You're right Gaetano, he's out of our lives in another 7 months. But don't be naive, Juan lost because of voter confusion with another Ramos. Almost certain he would have won if not for the lack of knowledge between the two Ramos's. But its over and now for the first time in almost 3 decades, we don't have a latino in an elected office position. And we say we're Progressives??? (Congrats to Maria BTW, but she only represents the 7th).
Casinos=tons of jobs...period.
No effing comment,
No effing comment, people.
Seriously - how much more convention center does Philadelphia need?
The convention center THAT ATE PHILADELPHIA!!!!!
Actually - I have a suggestion
Put all that damn casino money in the schools.
As I said elsewhere...
It's been shown that, overall, government-sponsored gambling is a regressive tax on the poor. So, using casino money to fund the schools will be, in effect, a transfer tax from the poor to the poor.
-Z
I could be wrong, but my impression was that she meant
take the money that would theoretically be devoted to building casinos, and instead invest it in schools.
Of course, convincing the casino investors to invest in schools instead might just be a tad of a longshot - but if we capitalize the costs to the communites from casino development, i.e., cost of extra cops, cost of people sitting in cars in traffic jams, cost of dealing with people who are broken financially, etc., and ad those to the costs of the money wasted on paying those politicians who took money from casino lobbyists and then passed the legislation on our dime - it probaby would add up to quite a sizable amount.
What I meant. about casino $ and schools
I meant to say that casino revenue should go to the schools (...this comment is inspired by the increased funding that council voted on this week, very bravely over Street's objection - props to Councilman Goode for that!!!)
From the Jeff Shields article that ran May 12, here is the breakdown of casino money that comes into the city, on a yearly basis:
- City schools get 5 million
- General fund gets 23 million
- The convention center gets.... 36 million!!!!
Shields also pointed out that it's a drop in the bucket of a $4 billion budget.
But priorities, people...priorities. SEPTA is getting rid of transfers!
-----
Correct me if I am wrong, please.
--
Well, in that case
I basically agree with azion's response. Maybe we should open up brothels, like in Nevada, in order to raise money for schools? Have the State takeover gun sales, perhaps? Auction off the labor of convicted criminals? Think of all the ways we could raise money for schools if we get really creative.
The "benefits" of gambling is a smokescreen. It's a simply matter of mathematics.
Casinos take in more than they pay out, even with the spending projects they're promising. Any profit they make that is above the amount of money they take in from wealthy people plus the amount the get from people from outside the community, will come from poor people in our community. I'm sure that amount will be considerable.
But yes, if the casinos are to be built, I'd much rather see the revenue go to schools than to the convention center.
I say we should legalize prostitution
As George Carlin put it: "Selling is legal; f--king is legal; why isn't selling f--king legal?"
Heck, legalize it, make providers adhere to health codes, + tax the heck out of it. You wind up taking a chunk out of organized crime's profits, benefiting public health, + raising money.
But I digress,
-Z
Heh. We can't even make
Heh.
We can't even make restaurants adhere to health codes. ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
True enough...
... except that, in this case, the providers themselves would benefit significantly from adhering to health regs. After all, nobody wants to wind up w/an unpronounceable disease.
At least, I hope not,
-Z