- '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?
Nearly 80% Would Vote to Stop Casinos Building inside Neighborhoods
Submitted by Anne Dicker on Thu, 03/08/2007 - 10:03am.
If you live along the Riverfront neighborhoods of Pennsport, Queen Village, Northern Liberties, or Fishtown -- you know that nearly everyone is worried about casinos moving into the backyard. But what about the rest of the city, does everyone care?
That's why Casino Free Philadelphia commissioned a scientific poll conducted last week, surveying 500 registered voters in Philadelphia (71% of whom stated they would definitely vote in the primary). National political polling firm Global Strategy Group created the poll and yesterday released these results:
79% of registered voters SUPPORT a law prohibiting casinos from being built within 1500 feet of a residential neighborhood, school, playground, or place of worship.
65% STRONGLY SUPPORT such a law.
What was amazing though, was that this strong support was seen throughout the city - from the north east to south Philly, from the edge of the Delaware out to west Philly. The support for the issue also cut across age, gender, and ethnic lines.
% SUPPORT
Northwest 84%
West 85%
Northeast 85%
North 65%
South/Central 76%
I think this result speaks volumes about why Sugarhouse casino is trying so hard to stop a vote - they will loose if its on the ballot. With all the information coming out now about losing Port jobs, small taverns loosing revenue to casino's free drinks, and the spike in homes for sale -- its becoming clearer and clearer that opposition to casinos in neighborhoods is growing.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
What is the End Game?
What's the endgame here? No casinos in Philly? Or just no casinos on the riverfront?
As presently worded, your poll is very disingenuous. For example, I think the result would have been remarkably different if you asked "if it meant casinos would not be built in Philadelphia and Philadelphia would not be the beneficiary of property tax decreases tied to casinos, would you support a law prohibiting casinos from being built within 1,500 feet of a residential neighborhood, school, playground, or place of worship?" I can think of many variations of this question that would likely result in 75% or more of respondents giving the opposite answer to that which your poll received.
Also, if we manage to amend the charter, what do you intend to do to stop Harrisburg from stripping Philadelphia of its local zoning control? You may be able to get the votes in City Council, but I don't see how you'll possibly get enough votes in Harrisburg to prevent them from removing the amendment to SB 862 that restored Philadelphia's local zoning control. If you don't have a strategy, the charter amendment is simply going to result in Philadelphia being in a worse position than it is in presently.
The anti-casino types strike me as being very irresponsible unless they (1) have a clear idea in mind as to where the casinos should go and (2) have a strategy to deal with Harrisburg that consists of more than simply banging on pots and pans and getting a few people arrested.
If you don't have answers to both questions, there is the very real possibility that the charter amendment is going to end up weakening Philadelphia's hand vis-a-vis the casinos.
To quote a friend of mine, before Philadelphia follows the anti-casino movement off a cliff, let's have it - what is your plan for the endgame?
______________________________
Phillyville
Sugar plum fairies
Strong support for slots exists only in the minds of politicians who hope for sugar plum fairies to deliver gifts of increased tax revenue and casino jobs. When those don't pan out, we'll still be paying for the costs of casinos in terms of local jobs, port jobs, and increased crime.
Look as closely into the economics of these wealth draining machines, as I have, and you'll start to understand why we are fighting so fiercely.
(I say this from experience: I used to do site selection and economic forecasting professionally -- working just outside of Atlantic City.)
My point is this - we should cash out
Right now, Philadelphia is likely in as strong of a bargaining position as it ever will be.
I will give you that there is a chance that (1) the charter amendment does get adopted, (2) Harrisburg doesn't take away our local zoning control, and (3) the courts do not invalidate this charter amendment as unconstitutional spot zoning. But the likelihood of each of these events occurring in our favor is distinctly remote.
I'd rather not take the gamble.
I'd rather not take that gamble especially if the people "leading" us on this issue do not have a clear strategy of how they are going to make sure (1), (2) and (3) go our way.
I'd rather someone sit down with the casinos right now and say, you give us X, Y and Z, and the charter amendment goes away.
Why not try to get the casinos to pay for the burial of I-95? Or pay for the citywide implementation of the YVRP? Or the citywide implementation of ten other programs?
I submit we have that leverage right now - our pile of chips is not going to get much higher. And if we continue to push the charter amendment, we could not only lose this opportunity, but also put Philly into a worse situation than it presently is - an outcome that I believe is far more likely than everything falling out in favor of the anti-casino movement.
______________________________
Phillyville
Masterful
No matter where you are on the issue, you just have to give DeWitt credit for the masterful use of "gaming" language.
To be clear DeWitt: your point is that you have to know when to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em?
And Anne, and others, you are saying: You never count your money when you're sittin at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.
Do I have the gist of this down?
Hahaha
<3
Leverage? Licenses are
Leverage? Licenses are already awarded! But for these manuvers, we would be watching them go up now. We are creating leverage.
In addition, you ignore the 5-6 legitimate cases pending in front of the Supreme Court that contain strong arguments that Act 71 is unconstitutional, that the selection process was flawed (a challenge even other casino developers are making) and that environmental considerations were not taken into account (as express requirement of the PA Constitution).
This is a flawed process. Why should residents have to tolerate a flawed process that brings in money, but threatens their community. I submit they shouldn't have to. If the process were not flawed, plauged by midnight sessions and had actual public input--we may be in a different place.
Why should the casinos negotiate?
This is a done deal. Including all future court decisions. My guess is the next opp for leverage by the antis is when construction begins. You'll have a chance to take it to the streets then. But for now, there's no reason in the world for the casinos to negotiate.
Reasons for the Casinos to Negotiate
1. Attorneys are expensive (especially the ones the casinos are paying)
2. Creating goodwill in the community will be even more expensive.
______________________________
Phillyville
Confused
Given that logic, it would seem that the more the antis create a need for the casinos to hire lawyers, and the more the antis create negative publicity that the casinos would have to spend to overcome, the more bargaining power they amass. That seems to contradict your earlier argument that their bargaining power has reached its peak.
Hello, Phillyville I did
Hello, Phillyville
I did some work on the pots and pans committee for Casino Free Philadelphia. If we never banged on pots we'd never have testimony before City Council. If we never banged on pans we'd never have press. It's all part of the big picture. The fact that you've noticed the ruckus is justification alone.
You are correct on some ideas, but I don't adopt your negative outlook. When a grassroots organization goes up against some of the most venomous lawyers in the country it's idealist to expect "the endgame" in a neat little package. Clearly, people will fight for their neighborhoods in terms of zoning. They can't alter that course.
"but I don't see how you'll possibly get enough votes in Harrisburg to prevent them from removing the amendment to SB 862 that restored Philadelphia's local zoning control."
Are state politicians on record saying that they would do this? I'm not asking to be sarcastic. It's an important discussion.
I submit that you've fallen for the trap. The governor wants you to feel the way you do.
Casino's in MY neighborhood
Can't we just build the casino's in someone else's neighborhood, but close enough to me so that if I want to go I can get there easily? This is a typical "NIMBY" issue.....Not In My Back Yard.
Again, this argument ignores
Again, this argument ignores the fact that it was the site selection process that was so flawed related to these projects that the onus should not be on 1.5 Million Philadelphians to present a suitable site, or even the 27,000 people who signed the petition. Rather, it must be on the government who wants to develop casinos and the industry to present suitable sites with adequate public input. This was not done.
I do not know what area of the law you practice in, but as someone who deals extensively with government procurement, construction and requests for proposals--the entire process was flawed. The first thing that should have been done was the selection of 2 sites for parties to place their RFPs. That is standard practice. That ensures community input.
In addition, this was a midnight bill. Our government was asleep at the wheel. Don't be upset with those who want to protect Philadelphians from percieved harmful development. Is your property value and quality of life is threatened by slot parlors and all of the empirical evidence that supports the fears of these residents? If so, then maybe you could understand the outrage.
your "outrage" is why I'm concerned
This whole process seems to being guided by, as you put it, "outrage" and "fears."
Which, as far as I am concerned, never results in good policy.
I am just asking the anti-casino types to step forward and demonstrate to me that they have thought through this process. That they realize that this initiative could end up putting Philadelphia in a much worse situation than where we presently are.
Even if the Charter Amendment is placed on the ballot and voters approve it, we can still end up with casinos on the waterfront AND, making matters worse, no local zoning control.
In other words, show me that you have considered this. Show me you are not simply being guided solely by "outrage," "fears," and, in my opinion, a ton of empty rhetoric.
Leaders don't lead on the basis of outrage and fear, and unfortunately, it seems that the leaders of the anti-casino movement are only playing to residents' fear and outrage.
I'd like to think the people involved in this movement are better than that. Show some real leadership and tell us what is your plan for making sure this doesn't end up screwing Philadelphia even more than we are already screwed.
Hopefully we have a few leaders on City Council who will ask these tough questions and make sure Philadelphia doesn't end up taking a giant step backward.
______________________________
Phillyville
I will assure you that the
I will assure you that the movement is a bit more sophisticated than you make it out to be.
And, casinos bring legitimate fear and concern. Ask the people in Pennsport who are in the line of fire what they think.
dude, then stop with the hyperbolic rhetoric
if you want me to believe that the movement is in fact sophisticated as you claim it to be, stop with the hyperbolic rhetoric.
Try to make your argument without resorting to fear and loathing and invoking metaphors that suggest all of Pennsport in going to be marched off to face the firing squad if casinos happen to be built.
______________________________
Phillyville
How about coming to an
How about coming to an actual meeting of one of the casino groups and seeing what actually happens rather than speculation?
I don't speak for Pennsport. But, my impression is many of the residents feel like that is something similar to what is happening to them.
Also, how could you not have these in your argument. These are legitimate concerns of people who own their homes, contribute to the vitality of this city and are choosing to be here. These are not my arguments, but their fears.
aarrgghh
Gaetano, how about actually reading what I wrote?
My point is not that these fears are not legitimate.
My point is that it appears as it the means by which people have chosen to address these fears may ultimately aggravate the very conditions that give rise to those fears.
I'm just wondering whether these tactics are going to end up screwing the proverbial pooch.
And just to be absolutely clear...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=screw+the+pooch
______________________________
Phillyville
I thought this was pretty
I thought this was pretty clear:
"Try to make your argument without resorting to fear and loathing and invoking metaphors that suggest all of Pennsport in going to be marched off to face the firing squad if casinos happen to be built."
And that is what I was responding to.
Again, it is impossible to separate these arguments from legitimate fears. I know, it's complicated.
As for the means, again, there are different groups doing different thing--all to the same end, casinos not being in nieghborhoods. I can't think of anything else these parties can do (aside from negotiating, which by-and-large they don't want to do) that they are not doing now. They are playing politically and legally--with good arguments on both sides.
I need to understand one thing:
Are you saying that where there is an inherently flawed and corrupt government process whereby results are given that could harm where people live due to a severe lack of citizen input and concern, that those same people should just shut up and accept this drastic change for what few people believe is an actual benefit to the city?
See, I'm more of a this kind of person:
People should have the right to at least have input into large, potentially irresponsible developments in their communities and where they are not afforded that right, they should use all means necessary, both politically and legally, to ensure that they, their families, their homes and nieghbors are protected.
I know you agree with the second more. But, it sounds like you want the first.
How about this: End Game--not putting casinos in our communities. There are sites we are all talking about. You have to realize, this is an experiment that has not been done before. While Detroit does, indeed, have inner city casinos, no casino in America has been plopped down in, adjacent to or by residential neighborhoods that lead the nation in population density.
Defining The Endgame
I'm only half reading all this, since I'm working on something else, so preemptory apologies if I missed something.
I think Gaetano pointed us back to a question that inheres in your original response post:
"What's the endgame here? No casinos in Philly? Or just no casinos on the riverfront?"
To the extent that Gaetano or anti-casino activists are committed to no casinos near residential communities, the equation is different from the one you are setting out, which seems to take the current placements as pretty much a given and focuses on strategic attempts to have relative leverage within that status quo.
I guess the question for you is what do you think we can bargain--what is "Philadelphia's hand vis-a-vis the casinos" as you see it?
Jennifer
And I Guess
the larger question is whether you (or we) think that there is no point to trying to organize to change the actual placement at this stage because the likelihood of success is sufficiently outweighed by the risk of losing whatever that leverage is (zoning, etc).
I guess you think this, but I also guess some of the people you are responding to disagree.
Jennifer
who's gonna be the good cop?
to use another hackneyed expression, who's gonna be the good cop?
We've got plenty of people playing the bad cop - everybody is falling over themselves to beat up on the casinos. When's someone going to pull the bad cop out of the room by the ear and sit down with perp and say, "you can either keep pissing off that crazy fool, or you can talk with me and we can come to some kind of understanding?"
Come on - I know there are a bunch of Bob Brady lurkers out there?!?!? Where's your great uniter now?
Who knows, maybe Brady's set this whole thing up so he could walk in to the room, play good cop and give credence to him being the "great uniter"? I'd give him some props if he was that Machiavellian.
______________________________
Phillyville
You know, DeWitt. That is a
You know, DeWitt. That is a really good point. Maybe he could broker a deal here. Someone needs to. Because, to some extent, you may be right. We could wind up screwing ourselves in the end on this one.
Do I think at some point we
Do I think at some point we have to stop the madness to not force the state to take away local control? Perhaps.
Do I think we need to move at least the Foxwoods site? Absolutely.
Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to petition the gaming board who can move the location aspect of a license upon "good cause."
As evidenced by the Casino Free Philadelphia appeal of November--there are no standards for an initial determination. So, what is the "good cause" determination to be made. The problem, inherently lies in Act 71, the revenue nature of casinos and the backwards way in which this was implicated. Irresponsibly so, Pennsylvania is already factoring gaming revenue into the budget--and so are communities throughout the state.
Would I like to see no gaming in Philadelphia? Without question.
Would I accept gaming if it were away from residential communities? Most likely, despite the concerns that remain.
Council putting up the charter referendum
This seems counter-intuitive.
Why would a majority of council agree to put the charter change on the ballot, when a majority of council could just add it right to the zoning code?
We thought it out. We've got a strategy.
It's all about framing. City Council would be less likely to make the decision themselves; but they will (we hope) give voters the chance to have a say.
And DeWitt, I think the questions you raise are fine questions to be raised. They're certainly not new questions.
The endgame is severalfold. When I first began fighting many months ago people gave me advice to not waste my time because there was no way we could make any headway in this issue. They suggested, in good faith, that the deal was struck and therefore nothing community outrage could do.
So one endgame is to unfurl the strong community opposition to casinos, which shifts the political landscape in a city and state. For example, we've now given solid support to some state reps who otherwise would be too timid to come out against gambling. That's good news and a reflection of how we can shift landscapes.
So, when I hear you say we cannot shift the state landscape in a way to defend our city, you remind me more of the doubters of yesterday then the strategy-minded trying to think ahead. That may be unfair, but that's probably why you got Gaetano so worked up. *smile*
Are we heading towards a city/state conflict? Probably. And I'd appreciate others helping me with other advice, too, on where we go from here.
But if everyone is so confident the state will hand over zoning control to casinos, why didn't the casinos go that route months ago? Well, they tried twice and have failed, once due to being ruled illegal and a second time due to community pressure.
The state is trying to hold a weapon over Philly's head. And it's a long-term game they're playing -- on the issue of crime, on education, etc -- is one we need to move in to open conflict. Philadelphia cannot protect itself when the state is so effectively able to push us around AND the city is not defending itself.
So, yes, we are willing to fight an open battle with the state, if they continue to refuse the will of the people. (That's another reason we went to a ballot initiatve. It allows us to really gauge where people are on this issue.)
It's not merely outrage that moves us, it's strategy, too. Afterall, it's strategy that's gotten us as far as we've already come.