- 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?
In brief: Yoo on trial?; Surprise! Casinos need parking
Submitted by HelenGym on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 8:58am.
Ahhh, the lowly brief. When I was a reporter in Mansfield, OH, it was always a struggle to define your artistic style by finding the right cut-off point for the AP wire story, or in limiting your words to fit the news hole while your overcaffeinated news editor yelled at you. Then again, less is often more.
Take these two examples today:
- On John Yoo:
A convicted terrorist can sue a former Bush administration lawyer for drafting the legal theories that led to his alleged torture, ruled a federal judge . . . The order by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco is the first time a government lawyer has been held potentially liable for the abuse of detainees.
- And on the Foxwoods fiasco:
[Councilman Frank] DiCicco was peeved that Rendell recently met with representatives of Foxwoods Casino to discuss concerns that Foxwoods' planned Center City site did not have enough parking. This after Foxwoods testified before Council that it had ample parking, and Mayor Nutter extolled the virtue of a site so close to public transit. . . . "I'm not happy that I was not included in those discussions," DiCicco said.
At least Yoo has more
At least Yoo has more material for his next op-ed.
Perhaps we should interogate Yoo
on where he derived his unique legal theories from. Were they formed in advance or merely made up after the fact to justify a practice that was already in play? I have a few ideas for an "enhanced" technique that could be applied to get that guy to talk. ;)
More seriously, the Jose Padilla case was always the most problematic. When you start arbitrarily taking US citizens and arbitrarily negating their Constitutional rights based on nothing more than giving them a new label or catch phrase you just made up, ignoring more than 200 years of legal history, instead of, you know, following the rules and putting them on trial and stuff, most assuredly it will come back to bite you in the ass. Or strap you to a board and pour water down your nose as the case may be.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
And perhaps we should interrogate DiCicco
on why he insists on making Council irrelevant by moving forward on a project that by a number of accounts is starting to fall apart. Or why he insists on being divisive with constituencies within his own district instead of building alliances and coalitions among neighborhoods. Or why he's surprised that when you're nothing but a cheerleader, the only place for you is the sidelines.
To be fair
I think not only DiCicco, but council as a whole, basically sold off a lot of their ability to negotiate for local guidance on the casinos in exchange for an "easier" fix to the budget crisis. Gov. Rendell basically was never interested at all in council having any local guidance in not just where but even the terms of "how" the casinos come so for Rendell the less city government is involved with his precious casinos the better - period. That's a really crappy perspective for our former mayor, largely elected governor because of phenomenal turnout by us, to have.
I know it feels like DiCicco was willing to fight for one neighborhood and not another and I certainly can't look in the guys head and say definitively it might not a factor. I just don't think its fair to say thats all thats going on. Council also backed themselves into a corner on the city budget and the sales tax deal and as a collective unit they are not real big on political chance taking. The PA Supreme Court does not fear city government but it does fear state party leaders of both parties and the Supreme's took away a lot of the city's options. The rest of the state wants our gambling addict's tax revenue a lot more than they give a hoot about protecting Philly neighborhoods or good urban planning or potential social costs in a city they generally dislike and distrust anyway.
I guess I'm not saying to not be cynical or angry but that in all fairness that the anger and cynicism should be spread around a little.
Lately I've been feeling more reconciled that Foxwoods is going to one of the two locations- I just don't want Council (DiCicco included) to so lay over and die that they won't step in and step up to push for basic mitigating provisions that might make the whole thing significantly less horrible than it might be. From that perspective, I'm at least a little encouraged that DiCicco is complaining about not being invited in.
IF (and I realize some of us are not there yet) this goes through, I'd rather have the person more likely then Ed Rendell or Bill DeWeese to give the least bit of a damn at least at the table.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Council as a whole did abdicate its responsibility but
DiCicco took the lead and insisted upon his Councilmatic prerogative in ensuring they did so. I also don't think it "feels" like DiCicco was favoring one neighborhood over another when his remarks - as well as his actions - clearly indicate such:
There's no lack of subtlety or misinterpretation here. DiCicco is explicit that it's one neighborhood over another and one part of the waterfront over another part. And what's ironic is that DiCicco has chosen to go nuclear at one section of the waterfront, but has refused to dialogue with neighbors and concerned citizens about the Market East location over restrictions and protections, and appears to have abandoned the Sugarhouse location entirely. DiCicco has been one of the most divisive forces in pitting neighborhoods against one another in his own councilmatic district, and has refused to see a bigger picture on what might be accomplished for both his district and the city as a whole. And while one may wish for Rendell or DeWeese, the 1st District is DiCicco's responsibility. There is no excuse for that.
I don't want to split hairs
and I'm not carrying anybody's water but yes he and the mayor prefer the downtown site. I'm also sure he would say he favors that site because reasons like proximity to public transit, a chance to roll it into an integrated tourist-conventioneer destination, blah-blah-blah that have to why he prefers one site, not that he cares about one neighborhood less. Some of those arguments legitimately have nothing to do with wanting to pit one neighborhood against the other, or desire to dump the social burden onto Chinatown. Feel free to argue that he or any other politician has more nefarious intentions than the ones they publically state but its hard to prove and I'm not sure it gives you any strategic advantage in being able to twist DiCicco's arm to make sure 8th and Market is any less awful than it has the possiblity of ending up.
Its also worth noting that the guy who received Doc support against DiCicco last time had some anti-casino bonafides in his portfolio whereas the leader of the 5th ward who has been making noises about running for that seat more recently doesn't seem to have any issues whatsoever with the casino relocating into Chinatown, right in the middle of his very own ward, as far as I can tell.
In terms of councilmatic perogative, they all defend it. They all are happiest running the city as 10 little fiefdoms, 10 little seperate de facto zoning districts because that's how you best collect donations from developers. Our own councilwoman once told my neighborhood civic association that noone should start any type of business at all in her councilmatic district without talking to her personally first and I doubt it even occured to her for a second that it sounded a bit meglomaniacal. Its attrocious I agree from a planning perspective but its not unique to casinos. If your biggest obstacle was councilmatic perogative, I'd be curious as to who of the other 16 you think would be willing to stand up to Rendell and the Gaming Board and potentially bust the budget if it wasn't for councilmatic perogative. Nobody who won in 2007 struck me as much of an anti-casino crusader to be frank and even less so now with this current budget deal.
Feef free to take this bit of strategy with 5 or 6 grains of salt but lately I'm feeling your best play is to hope DiCicco forces his way into those talks and to start to put pressure on him to return your calls on how to make 8th St. less awful. Or maybe you have a "good cop" playing opposite your "bad cop" that I don't know about, but if you don't it might be time to think about drafting one soon. Just my two cents, to take or leave as you desire.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Evidence, or lack thereof
I would be able to put some stock in this argument if the Councilman had done any analysis of the facts involved. What are the various potential harms posed by having a slots parlor at Delaware & Reed as opposed to having a slots parlor at 8th & Market? Had the City conducted a cost/benefit analysis then it would at least have something to point to when it decides to favor one site over another.
In fact, for many years, that is exactly what many pro-community activists have been asking. If, for the purposes of discussion, we must have 2 slots parlors in Philly (which is a proposition I reject), then lets look at the full map of the City and decide where are the two least-bad locations. Years ago, we were told that the state Gaming Board chose the two waterfront sites and therefore the die was cast. Well, that didn't turn out to be the case. When the economy tanked and Foxwoods went looking for a cheaper site, the City was in an excellent position to try and influence the location. It could have said, we have completed a comprehensive cost/benefit site search with experts and public input, and we are prepared to make it easy for Foxwoods if they want to move to _______, _______ or _______ locations; and anywhere else we will fight like heck.
But they did not do that. My guess is that they did not want to be accountable for the siting of the casino. Better to leave it to the evil Gaming Act, the evil Supreme Court, and the evil casinos. Better to play victim than to exercise real leadership.
Instead, Rendell and other politicians literally went into a back room (at 1735 Market Street) with Foxwoods and came out with 10th & Market, and they said, that's the way it's gonna be. And, if not 10th & Market, then it will definitely go back to the waterfront. Well...
That didn't turn out to be accurate either. Lo and behold there was a 3rd site, at 8th & Market, and now we are told that's the way it's gonna be. And, if not 8th & Market, then it will definitely go back to the waterfront. And on and on it goes.
If the co-owner of 8th & Market (Gramercy Capital) continues to oppose the site, there is a good chance that Foxwoods will come up with a 4th site, rather than seek to go back to their cost-prohibitive project at the waterfront. By that time, will the City have conducted any comprehensive, cost/benefit site selection with public input? It certainly is not too late to do this.
In the absence of any such analysis, I don't think it's unfair to suggest that electoral politics might be at play. That wouldn't be a crime; it would just be a failure of leadership.
Oh, and the whole phantom supposed deal about the budget? I would like to see one bit of evidence for that. And I do not consider statements from the parties involved to be good evidence. Those statements could equally be pretext.
All excellent points about the Foxwoods move
I think you point out very well that a.) if the city makes a good case that another site will make the license awardee more money (so they are inclined to give up the bird in hand they already have) and b.) Ed Rendell is on board - it is changeable but probably only in as much as both of those are true. If an alternative doesn't match both criteria, Foxwoods is not going to budge on what over the long haul is a license to print money they rightly feel they already won in court. Maybe there is 4th site that matches all the criteria but its not something I would bet money on (no pun intended).
Its an interesting speculation on Gramercy, but Gramercy has no motive in this except to shake down PREIT and Foxwoods for what they think they can get. Their commitment to 8th and Market is purely monetary. The building means nothing to them other than a simple square foot per dollar ratio. They have already figured a number they will take to buy or build equivalent office space as profitable someplace else in town and its more than likely an amount Foxwoods can actually raise. They will certainly begin negotiations by asking for as much out of PREIT/Foxwoods as they think they might get, but as long as PREIT's offer matches that base "make me move" number, I would not hang a lot of hope of Gramercy stretching out negotiations for very long. Sadly if funds that match Gramercy's base magic number can't actually be found, it would basically be a sign of a global economic collapse so dire that the whole casino thing would be the least of our problems.
There is no "phantom deal" on the budget. Its all out in the open. The city has passed a budget that barely, barely makes sense if Nutter gets concesssions from the municipal unions that have yet to arrive and the same budget basically means a catastrophe for city government if they don't get the sales tax from Harrisburg. The sales tax does not happen without Rendell going to bat for it in a major way. More than that Rendell's probably not beyond holding one hostage for the other. Basically Rendell likes the "free taxes" he sees in gambling revenue the way crackheads like crack cocaine. No secret. Council and Mayor Nutter are therefore committed to give Crackhead Eddie exactly what he wants to avoid the Armegeddonish "Plan B" budget they have already passed per PICA requirements. If the sales tax doesn't pass, City Council does not go back to the negotiation table - Plan B kicks in immediately and Nutter starts to cut city departments with the chainsaw, not the scalpel.
If you think a downtown casino is more unpopular to basically cowardly Councilmembers than Plan B's dire, dire layoffs of firefighters and cops, cutting trash pickups, etc., I honestly don't think you have been paying enough attention over the last few months.
I'd sincerely love to be wrong. I'd love to feel a lot less like the old SNL Debbie Downer skit but I really, really hope you guys have thought hard about some of your own "just in case" things that can make 8th and Market's impact less noxious. If this economy has shown anything its shown its always, always important to plan for "what if". That's all I am trying to say.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Maybe Yoo should interrogate
Maybe Yoo should interrogate DiCicco. I'm sure he'll come up with some novel ways of finding out what he already wanted to hear in the first place.
-Z