- Pennsylvania Among 'Terrible 10' Most Regressive Tax States
- February 4 Non-Partisan Training: HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013: HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Republican Governors Opt-In to Medicaid Expansion
- The Reports of Unions' Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
- Ask Allyson Schwartz to run for Governor
- Mind the gap: Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion Leaves Low-income Families Behind
- Jan. 14 Workshop:HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013; HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Seth Williams on Guns, Jasmine Rivera on School Closures @PFC Meetup Wednesday
- PA Revenue Strong Midway Through Year; Tax Cut Could Have Big Impact
- What to Make of the Fiscal Cliff Deal?
Nutter Snubs Tad Decker, Re-asserts Anti-Casino Position
Submitted by Karim Olaechea on Fri, 09/21/2007 - 3:12pm.
When Linda Soffer and Jeanne Kohl of the group Mothers Against SugarHouse (MASH) received news that Thomas "Tad" Decker would be co-chairing a fundraiser for Democratic mayoral nominee Michael Nutter, they were confused and outraged. Decker is the former chair of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, the governmental body that authorized the construction of two casinos along Philadelphia's Delaware riverfront and within a couple hundred feet of people's homes.
"I couldn't understand why Nutter would be taking money from a man who worked to deny Philadelphians a vote on where to put casinos" said Linda Soffer of MASH.
During the Democratic Primary, Michael Nutter had supported a ballot referendum that would keep casinos from being built 1500-feet from people's homes, schools, playgrounds, and places of worship. Why was the Democratic mayoral nominee now socializing with, and taking money from, the man who had presided over the board when it sued to remove the referendum question from the ballot?
That's when MASH and other casino opponents intervened by firing off a series of letters to Michael Nutter demanding an explanation and calling on the Democratic candidate to turn down Decker's contribution. The Nutter campaign's responded quickly, making the following statement: "Mr. Tad Decker is not a member of any host committee for any Nutter for Mayor fundraisers. When we learned that his name had been added to a host committee by a few supporters, Michael asked that he be removed, and he was."
In a letter, Nutter responded by reasserting his opposition to SugarHouse and Foxwoods casinos, stating that "There is highly controversial evidence about whether the benefits [of gambling] are sustainable over time and whether those benefits exceed the substantial costs of gambling, addiction, traffic, public safety and the impact on future economic development. "
If elected, Nutter pledged to use the city's zoning powers to force the casinos to resite away from neighborhoods, and to lobby the General Assembly and Governor Rendell to "change the state's gaming law to allow for greater local control and an opportunity to rethink the decision awarding the casino licenses."
"Nutter did the right thing." responded Linda Soffer of MASH, "Mayor Street is obviously in the pocket of the casino industry. Our next mayor needs to keep his independence. All candidates should refuse contributions from people with ties to either SugarHouse or Foxwoods until those casinos agree to move to locations that are further from homes, schools, and the streets where our children play."
Michael Nutter faces Republican Al Taubenberger in the general election on November 6, 2007.
Thank you for your e-mail regarding casinos. Mr. Tad Decker is not a member of any host committee for any Nutter for Mayor fundraisers. When we learned that his name had been added to a host committee by a few supporters, Michael asked that he be removed, and he was. In this primary election, Michael completely adhered to the City's campaign finance laws - which he helped to write. Under those laws, donors are not permitted to give large sums of money, as they had in the past. This will ensure that no single donor can use undue influence with elected officials, regardless of the donors' interest or causes.
In terms of casinos, Michael has said consistently throughout the campaign that he does not support gambling as an economic development tool. There is highly controversial evidence about whether the benefits are sustainable over time and whether those benefits exceed the substantial costs of gambling, addition, traffic, public safety and the impact on future economic development.
What has concerned Michael, as he has said, is the process by which casino gambling was proposed for our city. He believes that process was flawed and inappropriate. Of the many problems in that process, the most consequential was the link made between operators and locations in the awarding of licenses, which obscured any thoughtful debate over neighborhood impacts.
Philadelphians are right to protest the decisions made under that flawed process. Michael supported placing the question on the May ballot, as voted unanimously by City Council. In May, he voted "yes" on Question 1 - to create a minimum standard of keeping casinos at least 1500 feet away from schools, places of worship, homes, parks and playgrounds.
If elected Mayor, Michael will do the following:
- Work to use the City's zoning powers to ensure that the neighbors' wishes are addressed. If the neighbors do not want the casinos, then Mayor Nutter will do everything that I can under the law to make sure that the casinos are not built on the currently designated sites.
- Lobby the General Assembly and the Governor to change the state's gaming law to allow for greater local control and an opportunity to rethink the decision awarding the casino licenses.
Tricia Enright, Campaign Manager
Related News:
Nutter Campaign Emphatically Refutes Any Association With Shamed Ex-Gaming Control Board Prez, Philebrity 9/19/07
Glad to see Nutter is willing to rethink casinos
Thanks for the update. I was a little worried about that supposed fund raiser.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
can Linda expand on this point?
I have not followed the specifics of casino development as well as I should have, but didn't Street form a Philadelphia Gaming Commission two years ago to study site issues? And didn't they come up with much better sites than the PA Board? And I thought Nutter and Street both were interested in a Convention Center site as opposed to a water front one?
Street's been a good tool
That's right. Street creating the Gaming Advisory Task Force and took several other steps to support gambling in the city. He's been a very active supporter of casinos in the city, but always wanted his people -- the Riverwalk folks -- to be selected. (People like Mondesire and others to whom he is well-connected.) But, of course, (otherwise) respected African-American city leaders have no chance against Fumo's gang and the Rendell gang of inside deals.
I don't remember his take on a Convention Center site, but that site never was seriously considered by the casinos, who wanted a much larger venue and space to grow.
But you know Street, Ray, he's not one to seriously battle the state on important issues (e.g. gun control). So when Riverwalk wasn't picked he quickly made nice with the Gaming Control Board's decision and said we should all just accept the wisdom of the state.
He's now been pulling all his muscle, including using the City Solicitor and the City Planning Commission (especially Janice Woodcock) to try to force these casinos into the city. But as the recent City Council candellation shows, the Mayor does not have the same rank and influence to keep steamrolling these projects over community opposition.
I guess that explains it
I guess when my perception is that every Democratic legislator in the city (and the state) is supportive of gaming, it seems unfair to single out Street. Street may have wanted his site to be picked--though I don't think I would say that Street and Mondeshire are close by any stretch of the imagination--but the attempt to create a local entity to get ahead of the state on site selection was still a good thing. Grassroots efforts to stop casinos coming to Philadelphia (starting with the MCA) can mostly be credited for getting things where they are today politically, but Street's Gaming Commission also helped slow the process that has already gotten casinos up and running almost everywhere else in the state.
Leaving Street out of the picture:
This is great, however, there are a lot of things Nutter needs to do in Harrisburg, starting with changing our school funding formula to get more money for Philadelphia (and other poor school districts across the state). In that context, I wonder how much political capital he can expend fighting for local site control of casinos, which have been framed by Democratic legislators as a revenue generator for schools across the state, when schools and gun sales and a whole lot of other issues take up so much space.
Agree and disagree
Casinos in our neighborhoods are unacceptable--no matter who supported it in 2004 when the Act 71 became law (at just before 1 am).
Statistical evidence shows a correlation between crime and increased social ills related to proximity of people to casinos. I'm not anti-casino. But, I am very troubled by the siting decisions made by the Gaming Board--and so should every homeowner or concerned citizen in Philadelphia.
I'm not sure how Street's adminstration has, itself, slowed the licensure and building process at all. Can you explain?
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Street and Casinos
I think Street's Gaming Commission helped start the media narrative that was interested in casinos. As Daniel himself said the other day at the Progressive Roundtable, the media is much more interested in covering stories where the outcome is not obvious. Street's Gaming Commission helped to do this. The formation of that commission, which had a lot of community leaders on its various committees--not just politicos--was the first time that Dems in Harrisburg got that Philly, as a whole, was not gonna just lie down and take whatever the Gaming Commission handed out. Not to mention that it sent a message to potential developers that coming in to Philly was not going to be as easy as in say Chester.
Now saying that Street helped start the media narrative is like saying that a work of great literature's success is due to the creation of language. In other words, anti-casino activism is much bigger than Street, but the comment made by Linda above about Street seemed like a cheap shot to me when the real actors in the passage and in the implementation of casino laws are pretty clearly identified.
And, again, back to my main comment on the post above, Nutter has a lot on his plate when he comes into office, where and when he will expend political capital in Harrisburg is no easy thing to predict.