From Vern Anastasio, reform Democrat for city council, from council chambers this morning:
-----------
Victory!
This morning, Philadelphia's city council voted unanimously to place the anti-casino referendum on the May 15 ballot.
It was a triumph of organizing, of the anti-casino movement, and of the everyday people who have been organizing in South Philly, in Fishtown, in Society Hill...in all the neighborhoods of the First Councilmanic District that have spent the last year fighting for local control of the slots monsters.
Like most of you, I have spent most of my life seeing an unresponsive city council that does nothing but help themselves...Dare I say it? This means we must be making progress.
We all know that the people of South Philly were never consulted as to site selection. Or what these things should look like. Or whether they should have 24-hour liquor licenses. Or whether they should be across the street from a school.
We are faced with two casinos intimately tied into the most politically powerful people in the state of Pennsylvania.
...and for the first time,
in 2007,
two years after this whole process began,
thanks to everyone who finally got everyone to come around -
They will have to listen to the people.
Respectfully,
Vern Anastasio
Democrat for First Council District.
www.vernanastasio.com
215-238-0235
Of course if the referendum
Of course if the referendum passes, you can pretty much say there will be no casinos in Philadelphia.
Instead of a compromise situation to get them located in a better position (which will be difficult because there will always be NIMBYs no matter where you go) no you are just driving out revenue and jobs.
Not to mention the fact I don't think zoning ordinances should be in the Charter.
Out of curiosity's sake, are you all going to mobilize to vote out all the reps and senators for the state that didn't fight enough for Philly?
Seems that way
I got an e-mail from a casino opponent entitled "Don't Bet on Babette." Seems like this will be an issue for the 2008 primaries.
---
http://benwaxman.com
Yes, that was an email and a
Yes, that was an email and a mailer from Larry Farnese--who ran the closest and most competitive race in Philadelphia in 2006 (winning over 48% of the vote against a 20-odd year incumbent). It's all about leadership--something out our state delegation was not showing in 2004 (and 2005 for that matter).
Here is some of the letter:
"Sadly, the Gaming law is a creation of Philadelphia’s very own state delegation, including Rep. Babette Josephs, and their midnight passage of Act 71, which legalized slot parlors, created the gaming board and otherwise developed the scheme that has brought thousands of slot machines just a few thousand feet from homes, schools, places of worship, families and businesses."
Let me know if you want a copy.
But, related to gaming--the state delegation IS THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY. They were asleep at the wheel in 2004! Guess who suffers for this omission, the homeowners along the river, the schools along the river, the places of worship along the river and the families along the river. And, based upon the County-wide casino data--we will all be losers. Good looking out State Reps!
First, mega-congratulations
to everyone involved in this fight. Today's victory is glorious. I've been around a long time. I've never seen the building trades defeated in Council. To see them defeated 17-0 is truly incredible.
Not to deflect from this incredible victory in any way, I do want to add some food for thought. One main reason casinos and other gambling initiatives have taken such firm hold here and around the country is the right wing's success in creating tax phobia. And they've created it because we've been so unsuccessful making the case for progressive taxation which would impose the largest burden of taxes on those who can afford to pay. It's a real problem that if we win this fight we may have to forego lots of revenue. At some point we're going to have to propose alternative means of raising it. The sooner we get down to that job, the stronger the anti-casino fight will be.
On to May 15th!
Thanks Frank DiCicco!
I will take this opportunity to thank my district councilmember for his 16 mos of hard work and determination in seeing this important effort to a reality. He has worked with longstanding and legitimate civic groups to give them and all Philadelphians a voice in this process
www.jameskenney.com
www.311forphilly.com
Councilman Kenney, In your
Councilman Kenney,
In your view, with this much widespread support to get 17-0 vote, why did they choose to just put the item up for referendum on charter as opposed to just making a legitimate zoning change?
Because
Thousands of people requested a ballot question.
I have been reading your comments about this issue, and I do share your multiple concerns. Government is often criticized for not listening to the people. This time we will see just what the people have to say about gaming and its positive and negative effects, at the polls on May 15th.
Sometimes you get what you ask for.
www.jameskenney.com
www.311forphilly.com
re: what people are asking for
I'm not sure I understand that comment.
I would feel a lot better about having casinos in the City with the majority of voters indicating support, than I would having casinos in the City without the voters having had a chance to weigh in on the subject.
Are you suggesting something other than that?
I think what Jim is saying
I think what Jim is saying is he is worried about potential effects- like the State stripping the City of its zoning rights, but, understands the reality of what people want, and is going to give it to them.
And that instead of trying
And that instead of trying to get better placement of the casinos, the charter change will theoretically just have zero casinos, period and cut off a revenue and job source.
Basically a casino could only go in the Navy Yard and I a far from keen to the idea of utilizing extremely finite port/industrial space for a casino.
That's a different story.
That's a different story.
Are you saying that you think it's better that casinos be located in Philly (because they will provide jobs), than the citizens having the opportunity to say they don't want them?
Hmmm. I've got a problem with that one.
Well, I am going to say
Well, I am going to say that, if properly informed, the majority of Philadelphia residents are not going to agree with the anti-casino groups. When I say properly informed, I mean they find out if we have no casinos, we get no gambling money from the state. I do think 1.4 million Philadelphians are going to quickly lose interest in the 25K in those neighborhoods.
As for citizens choosing to have casinos in the city, I think it is mixing topics. The anti-casino people are under the flag of "no casinos in our neighborhoods" but the results they are fighting for are "no casinos in Philadelphia at all". The argument would be different if the charter amendment was to ban gambling institutions within the City. At least then the average voter would know exactly what the effect is. I would assume the average voter doesn't realize, at this point in time (it will change when the casinos start advertising), that the amendment will ban casinos in the City.
As an aside, is there a definition of a "Casino"? Will this amendment be able to be enforced against places like The Turf Club and other OTB sites?
Wrong
The Delaware River Nieghborhood Alliance is a coalition of neighborhood organization most affected by casinos. Our constituent group is 200,000 homeowners and families. Not 25,000.
The number I was going by
The number I was going by was the 25000 signatures. We know there are 25,000 people that signed off against it and theoreticallly of voting ability (yes, my bad for saying 1.5 million Philadlephians since obviously they all can't vote. Sorry for that.)
twice wrong
The anti-casino people flying different flags. One flag might be NIMBY - but another is "We're tired of having things shoved down our throats."
I'm actually pretty surprised at your disdain for "the average voter." Too bad that all that riffraff won't have the smart folks determining for them what's in their best interest, huh?
Where was disdain? Even
Where was disdain? Even though you are an intelligent poster, you have a nasty habit of reading too far into people's posts.
Hate to break the news to you, but us internet forum posters are not the average voter. We have a habit of going out and searching for a lot of information. The average voter not so much. They get a lot from tv and what they catch in the paper or news.
My point is the idea of "no casinos near homes" sounds like a good idea and sounds like a noble idea to backup. Upon further research though, you find out that it is really "no casinos in Philadlephia" and no tax revenue. Unless someone is well informed, the two consequences are not obivous.
I got your point
And yes, I borrowed a little hyperbole from Stan on that one. But your statement "I think it is mixing topics." got me rolling.
I'm not under the illusion that the "average voter" is as informed as the average YPPer, and yes, if the referendum had been more specific then the vote would be more reflective of the true public opinion.'
But still, your statement didn't acknowlege that the citizenry's voice is the "topic" that underlies any referendum. As imperfect at it may be, it is far superior to initiatives taking place without civic involvement, or even the recognition of the public's voice. I know I'm sounding like broken record here, but recent events with resepect to City Council hearing the voice of the public have me more hopeful about politics than I have been for a long time.
I am not downgrading the
I am not downgrading the positive feel of our officials listening to us of late, but we also have to keep in mind election year. If this blew up in July of 2008, do you think we would have the same result? Hard to say.
I won't go into this anymore unless it is with a newer angle or discussion since we are getting a bit circular now, so I will just leave it off with my feeling is that if the referendum fails and fails with any definite majority, it is going to significantly hurt the anti-casino movement ... the coup pulled off to get it on the ballot will backfire and solidify the casino's position.
It is the equivalent of a prosecutor asking his witness a question that supports the defense's position. The question may have seemed good in principle, but the answer screws ya over.
Good point about it being an
Good point about it being an election year, and I guess we'll see if this trend continues after the election dust has settled.
Yes, it's getting circular, but just so you don't get the last word, I'll say that it's not clear to me yet that if the refendum fails the anti-casino movement will be any worse off than they would have been had there been no referendum. And even if that does turn out to be the case, this is just one issue, and the potential carryover from people being more empowered, and City Council being more responsive, could be a definite upside that could have a postivie impact on a lot of issues. Hey, I'm not optimistic that often, don't burst my bubble, man.
I'm going to go out on a
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the anti-casino group is going to find out the majority of Philadelphia doesn't share their views about having zero casinos in Philly.
As an aside, I think the Disney Hole would have been an excellent location (which, of course this amendment wouldn't allow to happen either). This is from a post I wrote on Phillyblog:
As long as they agree to no neon lights, I am ok with them building one on the Disney Hole. Convention center + casinos + tourism + restaurants = lots of money for the City and hotel growth.
All from one location you can hit the Convention center, the casino, stadiums, hotels and walk or take transit.
A nice, tastefully done, multi story casino. dollar slots first floor and decreasing as you go up until you hit the high rollers at the top with the view. Throw a restaurant on one of the top floors. Buses from the whole city run right in front of it. Regional rail and patco across the street (Jersey can park at patco and take speedline in).
So be it
Well, it's easy for me to say since I don't live in the areas where the casinos will be located, but if that happpens, at least it reflects an improvement over the status quo in this city - in that the voice of the citizenry is being asked for and heard.
In the long run, I think that's most important.
No, in the long run if it
No, in the long run if it fails, then the casinos get put in a location that a lot of people outside the neighborhoods don't think is the best, but think it is better than none at all.
I think it was gambled and this is going to be an win all-lose all scenario.
The goal should have been to get better casino selection, not a veiled ban.
Are you aware of how
Are you aware of how difficult it is to change the sites? Are you aware it requires "good cause" and board approval? Are you aware that the site selection process was backwards from the start? Are you aware that, unlike traditional proposal projects, the state allowed applicants to pick sites without regard of where they were? Are you aware of the abbreviated comment period? Are you aware of the ban on commentary after final proposals were given by the casino companies?
Are you aware that a goal is, in fact, better site selection, but that due to all of the issues above we have no leverage?
People talk about this as if it exists in a vacuum. It does not. These things were thrown at us with little attempt to ease the concerns of the 200,000 people who live within walking distance of either site.
But a different referendum
But a different referendum could have attempted that while not outlawing casinos.
What if the referendum was "casinos can only be given zoning approval by public referrendum". Granted that is not a perfect example, but it gets my point. I would have been a lot happier with an amendment that would have still allowed casinos to be in the city while giving more public power to the location.
The amendment now will end up either as "casino as planned" or "no casinos at all".
I just don't think it was the correct move in the best interests of the residents and the City and I think it will be like Kenney said. Watch what you wish for.
If you lose this referrendum, you gave the casinos a huge weapon and the ability to tell you to stick your concerns up your butt because the people said "ok".
We will
find out what the rest of the city does feel about gaming.
Before yesterday, there was no shot at gauging that sentiment.
www.jameskenney.com
www.311forphilly.com
And again, to me, that is
And again, to me, that is the victory here - regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
Perhaps too idealistic a perspective given the real world of consequences and trade-offs and deal-making and strategic tactics and power politics?
But pie-in-the-sky or not, my hope is that what has happened here is reflective of, and will help catalyze, the trend in this City towards our government being more responsive to the citizenry and the citizenry feeling that it has a voice in policy-making.
And that is where we
And that is where we disagree. I don't think any old choice is the victory. You needed to give people the a viable choice and one that you have good odds of winning.
I kid you not. When the casinos start advertising that if people vote for the referendum it will prevent their taxes from going down because of the loss of tax revenue (and you knwo they will), I honestly believe the 9 other districts are going to send the 1st district packing.
And at that point, the casinos are going to stick it to you hard because you have no trump cards left.
Fair enough
but to pursue that a bit further (excuse my lack of research diligence). How far reaching would the implications be if the State does strip the City of zoning rights in this situation? Would it extend to other zoning issues? Would it make it more likely that the casinos would be less responsive to the communities in which they'd be locating than they would have been if there weren't a referendum? In other words, do you think it's true that in balance, the City could lose out as a result of a referendum vote in support of the casinos?
Honestly, I am not sure.
Honestly, I am not sure. Maybe Dan or Anne, or Mark Cohen, can talk about it, cause I really don't know.