I guess the neighborhoods along the riverfront can thank this Republican from Bucks County. Will the Philadelphia delegation cosponsor this bill?
I don't know how to make it neat and gray, but this is a press release his office sent out.
**********************
Rep. Paul Clymer (R-Bucks), Republican chairman of the House Gaming Oversight Committee, today introduced legislation to eliminate the two licenses available for stand-alone casinos in the City of Philadelphia.
"For months I have observed the residents along the Delaware riverfront fight against the odds to include a referendum in the May Primary Election to determine the location of the two city casinos," said Clymer. "They have legitimate concerns about increased traffic congestion and crime impacting their nearby homes. These citizens have been nothing less than heroic in their efforts to establish their constitutional right to a referendum."
Specifically, Clymer's legislation would eliminate the two Category 2 licensed facilities to be located within the City of the First Class (Philadelphia) by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board.
"Thousands of residents have signed petitions and rallied for their right to have a say in whether a casino is built in their neighborhood. Obstacles were always present: sometimes political, sometimes the courts and sometimes special interest groups. Undaunted, local residents battled on," said Clymer.
"I have said it before and I say it again: the expected revenue generated by these casinos should not outweigh the quality of life for which Pennsylvania is known. We need to make sure that with the gambling expansion, there are protections in place to safeguard our neighborhoods and businesses."
Recently, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board has petitioned the State Supreme Court with an injunction that in essence will disallow the citizens of Philadelphia to a Primary Election vote on the referendum.
"This is unfair," said Clymer. "I recognize that many members of the group 'Casino-Free Philadelphia' are not opposed to casino gambling. Nevertheless, if they are denied the opportunity to chart their own course on this issue, prohibiting these two casino licenses will solve their problem and justice will be served.
Bravo!!
Finally someone stepped up for the residents of the waterfront who overwhelmingly oppose these casinos, my hat is off to Rep. Clymer.
Rep. Clymer has been very
Rep. Clymer has been very good to the voters most impacted by casinos--voters that are not in his constituency.
to "grey" a selection use: <
to "grey" a selection use:
< blockquote > < /blockquote > without the spaces.
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.
Longacre Website
And now we see which Philly
And now we see which Philly reps vote for this.
Once in awhile it seems we get a situation where an elected official steps up to the plate.
If it passes, it is a good solution because then it can be a situation that the licenses are assigned AFTER the site is chosen by Philadelphia.
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.
Longacre Website
Irony
This is great; very pleased that he took this step.
I believe Rep Clymer was the one who introduced a few pieces of legislation a couple years back to mandate that creationism be taught in all PA public schools. I remember being so thoroughly pissed off, but here we are a few years later and I can't help but laugh at the irony that this staunch Bucks County conservative is willing to take a stand on this issue when most of the Democratic people I've supported aren't willing to go the distance. I guess this is an important lesson in the usefulness of partisanship.
_______________________
I support, but do not work or volunteer for Dwight Evans
Or even more so, a lesson in
Or even more so, a lesson in the fact that just because you don't agree with some of a person's views, that you can't be on the same page with other views.
People tend to be a case by case situation. :)
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.
Longacre Website
You're not kidding
I checked out his webpage and the two banners that are displayed prominently are an anti-gun control banner and an immigration reform banner with a chain-link fence around the capitol in Harrisburg.
I was thinking "geez, this is our ally huh? ok!"
My dad always said, "Never bite the hand that feeds you."
Guess I've now learned...
...what people mean when the say that politics make for strange bedfellows. Any word on how much support the bill has?
Rep Mike O'Brien is a cosponsor
Rep O'Brien has said he is a cosponsor of this legislation. Maybe it'll have different traction with a GOP on the lead.
I know Christian Conservatives are, for very good reason, against gambling in general.
Gambling
Really? Do you think we should outlaw gambling? I think I disagree on that one.
I against the casinos because they are being forced on Philadelphia without any meaningful input from the neighborhoods that will be most impacted.
I welcome this bill, but I don't agree with my friends on the right who want to outlaw gambling for moral reasons.
---
Check out my blog!
I am currently working for Marc Stier and Ellen Green-Ceisler.
You do not have to agree
You do not have to agree with them. They have legitimate concerns too and are helpful allies. That is why, on this issue, Clymer is a friend and has done more to protect our communities than people like Babette Josephs--you know, someone actually elected to look after our interests.
So far, only one Philadelphia State Rep. has said he wishes he never voted for Act 71.
re:gambling
I didn't say I agree with them in that post, but I honestly think I might.
I definitely disagree with Act 71 because it forces communities to take slot parlors even if they don't want them. I think because these parlors have negative effects on their surrounding community, they should not be forced onto anyone. The argument then follows if a community wanted these parlors for whatever reason, I wouldn't be so opposed.
As far as state-run gambling in general, I've always had reservations; even before I had formed clear political beliefs. I think I am so uneasy about it because it clearly ends up financially hurting those that really can't afford it. For instance the lottery (which I've never played in my life) attracts the poorer class, the class which can hardly afford it.
We have an economic system that keeps people poor, and then dangle a very rare opportunity to escape poverty in front of them in the form of the lottery or slots; it seems like a cruel mind-game and it doesn't sit well with me.
Maybe if I knew that the people that mostly played the lottery or slots were real rich and could afford it, I wouldn't be so concerned.
I know I reek of hypocrisy as I advocate a live-and-let-live public policy regarding drug legalization, prostitution, and other fun weekend activities which is why I still am unclear in the end how I truly feel about this.
The two things I do know are;
1) Christians have legitimate reasons to be opposed to gambling and
2) No community should be forced to take such a negative thing into their lives without their approval.
I know I am wacky, but, I
I know I am wacky, but, I plain old think it is immoral to lower taxes or fund schools or whatever by taking the money of people who cannot really afford it. I am not sure what the answer is- given that NJ and co. are already taking it. But, I do think we are creating new addicts here, and I think that generally it is a ridiculous way to pay for programs.
Which again, is why
the tax issue is so important. It's when taxes are unfair and regressive that people become subject to persuasion about ways that soak the poor that are at least fun. If we reorganized local taxes to make them progressive, along with statewide taxes as well, we might have a decent alternative to pose to gambling as a way to raise revenue. Instead, we have progressives supporting the candidate who wants to further skew local taxes toward the real estate tax, one of the most regressive taxes of all.
Almost every issue is closely related to taxes and tax policy, which is why the notion that it's just one of a long list of things to consider in evaluating candidates is just wrong. If a candidate doesn't have a decent tax policy, we further drive society into one of haves, have-nots, and desperately hanging-ons. Why should those in the latter two categories care about what some of us think is primary: ethics. And why should they, when the major ethical mandate, for government to be fair, is pooh-pooed by the "reformers".