As many of you are aware, I’ve spent the greater part of 2 years working to protect Philadelphia’s communities from the alleged negative affects of slot parlors. First, as a lawyer working with Casino Free Philadelphia. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled against our plaintiffs, but I am happy to say I got to, briefly, work with Irv and John Grogan. It has also allowed me to work with Jethro and others who I credit with making this the issue that it is.

Second, as a Bella Vista Delegate to the group known as the Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance. Recently, my term ended due to my moving from the Bella Vista Community, among other reasons. But, having spent over a year in that group, I’ve met a number of individuals deeply committed their the cause. I’ve also met a number of individuals deeply committed to themselves.

The differences between CFP and PNA are stark. My impression is that CFP is a group committed to action—removing slot parlors from Philadelphia County. While I disagree with that goal logistically and fundamentally, CFP, Jethro and Dan Hunter have earned significant merit in my opinion for advancing this issue and mobilizing the citizenry.

PNA on the other hand is a group that purports to represent 26 civics in Philadelphia. Each civic has 2 delegates and an alternate or two. The founding purpose was that the civics along the river would voluntarily agree to a moratorium on negotiating with casinos until certain concerns were met or the casinos were re-sited. PNA is a coalition. And, as such there were certain problems with its governance.

For some reason or another, that purpose changed to re-siting alone leaving community benefit behind. That is something I have always disagreed with. I’ve always been a proponent of a plan “B”. There is no plan “B”. Thus, now, the express purpose of PNA is to re-site casinos from the present locations somewhere else.

THE BUFFER QUESTION AND RE-SITING

The “somewhere” else is an issue of great debate. Some adhering to a strict 1,500 ft. buffer. Others, wanting what they deem a more practical test—does the community want it and is there sufficient separation.

I am in the camp of the community test. There is two reasons for that. First, I find that 1,500 feet is not supported by any empirical data that tests a 1,500 ft. buffer. The assumption, which is a decent assumption, is that if crime increases in the county due to the introduction of casinos, the effects must be worse within a certain core. Also, the buffer was created to advance a political goal, a referendum. Originally it was 1,000 ft., but it was discovered that Foxwoods could configure their building to be outside of that buffer. That referendum is gone now and I think the reasons for a strict linear buffer are gone too.

Second, CFP, supported by the riverfront communities created the 1,500 ft. buffer. It was not a city-wide initiative. Granted, that was impeded by the Supreme Court. I am not a fan of imposing a standard other civics and groups didn’t bargain for on them. Some may cite to a poll, but I’ve never seen the questions asked and, I cannot opine on its scientific virtue.

In addition, related to re-siting, Philadelphia does not reflect its riverfront communities, many of which are white and extremely prosperous (Society Hill, Northern Liberties, Queen Village) and many of which are solidly working to middle class and gentrifying (Fishtown and Pennsport). Due to the issues of poverty and disinvestment in much of Philadelphia, I have always considered re-siting a risky move and, despite the efforts of some, the PNA movement is NIMBY at heart. That is not a bad thing. But, it is there.

FACTIONS AND ENTRENCHED IDEOLOGY

My conclusion in the summer was that PNA was becoming unworkable for two reasons. First, to many individuals were attempting to assert their own position in the group. This is political and ideological.

Ideologically, the divide came between CFP and PNA’s identity. CFP did not actively try and take over the PNA. But, some of its ideological members prevented PNA from forging its own identity. Many of us, and Dan Hunter and I discussed this, had hoped PNA and CFP would build a mutually beneficial relationship where we didn’t necessarily agree, but we would play off each other. CFP was clearly on the more “extreme” side of the plane. PNA, by its nature, had to be more “conservative.” I have always thought the groups should coordinate, but do so intelligently. Dan Hunter and Jethro have always been available to do that. This is an internal PNA issue.

Unfortunately, and to the detriment of the cause, this working relationship was never worked out. And, the blame lies entirely with PNA delegates who subverted the independence of the group. In addition, PNA had no leadership—just delegates and a self-appointed moderator. Thus, the group had no direction. In working in coalitions, direction and focus are essential. Similarly, consensus building is a necessary precursor to success. PNA’s abilities to build consensus lied with a handful of individuals.

Politically, the PNA is a mess. Some delegates and civics have always been friendly with certain factions of the local democratic party. Others, are donors and supporters of challengers. This creates a volatile environment. I’d like to say that most delegates disclosed their allegiances and left politics at the door. That did not happen. Unfortunately, I found myself being one of the few delegates not taking advantage of the political nature of the group. Due to my friendship, support and work for Larry, I never involved myself in PNA’s support for Rep. Joseph’s initiative in HB 1477 (a 1,500 buffer) (thought I did assist in the re-drafting of the statute to make it retroactive as it was not originally). In fact, Larry himself realized what was best for the communities was most important. He encouraged such a “Chinese Wall” (legal term for separation from conflicts). Also, certain PNA delegates requested I do so. I complied. I wish others would have done so with their conflicts.

The largest source of potential political contention was the Fumo-Dougherty contingents of the group. Mostly, this was related to distrust. As an independent, I found myself working with those on both sides. Honestly, it was easy to do. Over time, we all learned that the delegates (no matter what side) could be counted on to work hard for the PNA. That does not mean the distrust isn’t lurking below the surface. It does. And, from time to time it would be raised. Mostly, however, the maturity of the delegates on either side of this issue prevented it from becoming too bad--that is to the credit of Pennsport Delegates and those working with the Senator’s office.

There was no real issue in the 1st Councilmatic race. Surely, there were supports of Vern involved, but from the inside, I can say, no elected official has done as much to assist our cause than Councilman Frank DiCicco. I do not believe that statement can be disputed by any reasonable people. Some believed that, after his primary contest with Vern, he would abandon us. He didn’t. His support has, generally, been unwavering. Similarly, Rep. O’Brien has provided ample support for our efforts.

Recently, the race between Senator Fumo and Anne Dicker has caused contention. This has nothing to do with the two individual politicians, but with their supporters. Clearly, Anne deserves much credit for her work on the issue. No one should deny that. At the same time, the Senator (in the last few months) has come around and has provided much needed support for the PNA and its efforts. To many of the reasonable delegates, including those who would be on a Dougherty side of the divide and independents, it was very welcome news. Others, however, were not happy with the Senator’s position or his strategy due to their support for Anne. This issue alone has the potential to cause the PNA to implode—and not because of Senator Fumo or Anne themselves. But, because of the delegates.

NON-CONCLUSION

This post has been rambling. Mostly because, I’m still decompressing from the last year. But, the lesson I learned was, coalitions, with proper management are very valuable tools. One must accept the political and ideological differences and work to further the mission of the group. Sadly, in the PNA, during my tenure, that did not always happen.

Also, here is a question that hasn’t been asked in some time, how bad will it be if slots are located where they are presently sited? We haven't discussed this recently, and, perhaps it is time to re-open this issue.

But, I’d like to give a shout-out to those delegates who, in my opinion, have worked their tails off to push the PNA forward despite the above issues: Matt Ruben (NL), Rene Goodwin(Pennsport), Joel Palmer (Bella Vista Town Watch), John Smyth (Bella Vista Town Watch), Andy Sacksteder (River’s Edge), Ed Kirlin (Pennsport), Ed Goppelt (Hallwatch/NABR), Hilary Regan (NL), Dianne Mayer (NABR), Chris Meck (Pass. Sq.) and Jeff Rush (QVNA).