I suggested in January of 2007 that, if we had to have casinos, they belong near the airport--one of them might even be attached to the airport itself. An airport location makes casinos maximally accessible to non-Philadelphians and which is important because the city only benefits economically if most gamblers comes from outside the city and the casinos minimally cannabilize center city entertainment venues. There is air and road access to the area and three commuter rail lines from the suburbs could be extended into the area. (I would not allow any bus access from the city itself to the casinos.) The location is fairly distant from residential areas.

I may be wrong about the best site. I'm more insistent that no location should be chosen without some serious discussion of the alternatives and a political decision by the Mayor and Council. This time around, our political officials in the city need to take responsibility for the location of the casinos. That is a prerequisite of a democracy that the state took from us (our Mayor and Council were only too happy to avoid) the last time. And rather than waiting until sites are chosen to get mobilized, we citizens have to be on top of the proces from the beginning.

There aren't many second acts in American politics. This is going to be one of them. Let's hope we have all learned our lesson from the first go around.

I will comment with one caveat, I can't speak for the PNA.

But, community buy-in is key. Last summer, when we were asked to propose a list of new sites to Governor Rendell, we had a very difficult time doing so because of the ramifications of selecting other communities for a casino. That is when we made a decision that it isn't imcumbent on us to select new sites, that is a political decision. PNA would concern itself with ensuring the process was transparent and with an adequate amount of community buy-in. It is my understanding that PNA will continue to serve as a watchdog on this issue. I would also suggest that other civics join the PNA. One really loud voice is better than 100 soft voices.

These two casino sites are almost universally opposed by folks in the affected communities. I say almost because there has always been an element in the North related to a want of Sugarhouse. My opinion is they are a loud minority of folks. I could be wrong.

Just because these sites are universally opposed, however, does not mean that all communities are against a casino. That is why community buy, transparency and working with civic groups is key.

At the same time, casino developers have to be a part of this process. They will want to locate in economically viable sites. If we assume that there are some benefits to gaming dollars, then it would be in our interest to ensure that the Philadelphia casinos are near transportation networks and amenities, etc.

If anything comes out of this, it will be a delicate balancing act. But, I do not think additional hearings will be necessary to move casinos (note, that doesn't mean they shouldn't happen, but that is my personal opinion). I believe the licenses are portable based upon good cause shown. If Sugarhouse and Foxwoods make an application to the Gaming Control Board that circumstances have changed--perhaps that is good cause.

The "X" factor in all of this is the political side. Our elected officials, who up until this point have worked very hard for a just result (regardless of where they started out, which from my perspective is immaterial right now) will have to lead the re-siting efforts and build consensus. That will be very tricky.

I think PNA has a lot of potential relative to the re-siting conversation. I think PNA survived because of its absolute refusal to sit at the table with casino developers. Most importantly, PNA was effective because of the efforts of Councilman DiCicco. He proposed the idea of the North and South coming together and he led (and is still leading) the local charge.

The essential element, however, is transparency.

At least from the article I'm reading, the Governor says he will meet with Sugarhouse and "explore" the idea of moving with them. The key quote in the article comes directly from Ed's mouth, '"I'll meet and make a good-faith effort to explore the potential benefits of re-siting," Rendell said, "but nobody should get too excited. The only way these casinos can be legally re-sited is if the casinos voluntarily agree."'

I'm still doubtful as to whether Evans and Fumo's move could come to anything in the Lej, as I've seen no feedback from anyone in Harrisburg on their move outside their announcement and Rendell's move. Rendell is just promising talk, but at least he's being more honest about it than Evans and Fumo.

Now, the compromise question / careful what you wish for moment. Questionably passable legislation aside, what can the state and city do to entice the casinos to move? My guess is the Fumo/Evans "stick" measure, if passed, could be brought before the so far casino-friendly courts with the casino's accusing the state of creating legislation to renege on a contract. So there's got to be some sort of "carrot" incentives to the move. My guess is, if they move, the city and/or state will have to pay out some benefits to the Casinos that will cost the city/state under the current arrangement. I don't have the regulatory imagination to speculate, but (badly mixed metaphors ahead) unfortunately Sugarhouse and Foxwoods aren't annoying party guests messing up our living room while we plot in the kitchen the best way to remove them. They're more like bad suitemates in a college dorm, Fumo and Evans play student council while Rendell is playing the pragmatic Residential Life Director.

then he has been violating his trust by sleeping with one of the students.

Well, speaking for Casino-Free Philly, we don't have a list of proposed sites because we believe that if the siting process was done fairly it would reveal that casinos don't actually belong anywhere inside city limits. However, we have written (and made public, in the spirit of true transparency) a letter to Rendell, Nutter, Fumo and Evans thanking them and offering four essential guidelines for resiting. Take a look: http://www.casinofreephila.org/node/1060

Dan,

You raise a good question. Here's the deal: Evans and Rendell really, really want casinos. They want them to come quickly online. The only way they come online quickly is if they can strike a deal that decreases opposition. That's the rationale for moving them. Currently, we have a stack of issues that would take SugarHouse and Foxwoods many more years to build. That ranges from riparian lands, to federal environmental permits, to good ol' site occupations. And a good many of those are enough to stop a casino from being built on either site, for a host of reasons.

The pro-casino folks want to find a solution that decreases opposition and speeds up the process.

I've polled our members of Casino-Free Philly. Only a few of us will diminish if these are placed into another neighborhood, violating the principle of the 1,500-foot buffer that so many people support. (No casino slot parlor placed with 1,500-feet of a home, place of worship, school, park, or playground.) And then we'll grow to include the support of whatever neighborhood is affected.

Thus, the opposition increases.

The deal is out of neighborhoods. Not Nicetown. Not Port Richmond. Not West Philadelphia. Not Southwest Philly. Not North Philly.

Casinos do not belong in neighborhoods.

(Lily, rightly points out the other criteria we have for a resiting process.)

Obviously the same principles that were deemed to protect nicer neighborhoods closer to the river should protect neighborhoods closer to 95 and 76 - though there are those parts of SW that meet the 1500 ft. criteria that are likely to be the best solution possible so lets acknowledge that.

Also I will say I am looking forward to hearing from some of my NABR and Casino-Free friends at my SW / West Philly civic.

-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.