- We have to burn down the school to save it? The really nice school?
- Hey Ben: Questions about tax amnesty
- US Rep. John Murtha, June 17, 1932 – February 8, 2010
- Getting Real Answers from Gubernatorial Candidates
- It is always a good thing when our government works well
- Courtfighter: Delaware County Judge Maureen Fitzpatrick A Bigot? You Judge How Often Bigotry Occurs In Media, PA
- We'll Get You Ready for State Budget Release Tuesday
- ONE Praises U.S. Treasury Announcement to Work with International Partners to Relieve Haiti’s Debt
- A giant toxic monster is coming your way OR no rigs before regs!
- We Need Immigration Reform Now! Why Stu Bykofsky got it wrong.
DiCicco on casinos: "My fighting days are over."
Submitted by HelenGym on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 7:35am.
Following last week's heated Chinatown town meeting, Councilman Frank DiCicco's office immediately fired off a mass email complaining that information he wanted to share "got lost" at the meeting.
At this week’s Washington Square West meeting, there was plenty of space for the Councilman to share his deeply divided view of neighborhood priorities.
The last question of the day came from a Chinatown resident, a college student, who after restating the opposition in Chinatown asked DiCicco this:
"And my question is . . . if Washington Square West and Chinatown and other neighborhood organizations are opposing the casino, if you would join us in fighting against the casino placement?"
And this is what he had to say:
"I have been fighting the placement of casinos almost four years? three and a half, four years now. But I have learned, and I think most of us have learned, as I was trying to, I tried a couple of times tonight to articulate . . . I look at this from the opinion that we’re gonna have two casinos in the city of Philadelphia. I said that in my opening statement. And at some point a decision will be made whether it’s by me or this administration or someone else. The Supreme Court of PA will ultimately make that decision. So if Foxwoods tonight decided that there’s a third location that they would like to do some due diligence on – I doubt that very much – but if they were, all those sites are in play.
So when you ask me will I fight? If you want me not to introduce CED legislation on Thursday and you want me to stand outside with picket lines and do all the things . . . I did for the last three and a half years, honestly, it’s not going to make a difference in the end.
So it’s not that I don’t want to fight. We fought the fight. They’ve not yet been built and, some people may not appreciate what I’m about to say, but they are looking, at least Foxwoods is looking for an alternative site. Now it may not be where you want it, but they are looking at an alternative site and maybe had we not put up the fight that we did for the last three and a half years they may have been built already on Columbus Boulevard.
Sugarhouse, as another case, they’re not looking at another site. They have $100 some plus million invested between acquisition and legal fees and other costs, they’re looking maybe to redesign it to fit into the Penn Praxis plan if they could make that happen, but they’re not looking to move and they’ve already been given the green light by the Supreme Court, so I’d rather be part of a discussion.
As to the what if: what if we wake up someday and the casinos are going to be at Columbus Boulevard or Delaware and Reed in the case of Foxwoods and make sure we have as much guarantees and understandings of what we believe is in the best interests of the people who live and work in those communities.
So my fighting days if you will are pretty much over not because I’m a quitter but I think I’ve become a realist."
Thanks Frank: Although you may have felt that Chinatown prevented you from making that any clearer, I think all of us folks there heard you loud and clear.
On the one hand, you say to a neighborhood (or multiple neighborhoods as the case may be): "My fighting days . . are pretty much over." But on the other, you acknowledge the success of that fight: "Had we not put up the fight that we did for the last three and a half years they may have been built already on Columbus Boulevard."
So at Pennsport, you'll "make sure we have as much guarantees and understandings of what we believe is in the best interests of the people who live and work in those communities." But in these other neighborhoods you'll sidestep mass opposition in order to sit with casino officials in the back rooms to do what they want anyway.
Recently, DiCicco's office sent out yet another mass email laying out what he called a "process" to arrive at a decision, but clearly it's a timeline by Thanksgiving for Market East, the Gallery, the heart of the city, and a location less than 50 feet away from the first houses in Chinatown, to be converted to a casino district. Foxwoods has no state gaming license for this site. There are no plans, no proposals, no studies, not even a design concept.
Many folks are raising questions that in designating the Gallery as a casino district whether Councilman DiCicco, in fact, builds the case for Foxwoods to petition to transfer its license to the Gallery.
So, now the ball rolls to Council and the Mayor today when DiCicco introduces the legislation. And the questions to ask are: Is this move really better for the City or is it just better for Frank DiCicco? Why aren't we looking at a host of sites for Foxwoods to build? And when did Center City become DiCicco's personal Councilmatic prerogative and who on Council will step up to ask any questions about this move?
Politics, Helen, Politics
DiCicco had to act like he was against the casinos at the beginning after Vincent Fumo practically set the edict that they would both be located in District 1 [Fumo is some friend, huh?]
That put DiCicco's career as Councilman-For-Life into some doubt, as we all know what the reaction from the river wards was.
DiCicco no longer has to worry about his image with the ward leaders and he's saying exactly what everyone already knows. The Penna Supreme Court is the final authority on interpreting the Gaming Act, and the question about whether the Act itself is constitutional has already been solved, and that includes the provision that mandates two licensees are permitted to operate a casino in Philadelphia County.
His exasperation is more relief, in all honesty.
And for the record? DiCicco hadn't been all that caring about the casinos until 6 months into Primary season. That's when he was offering all sorts of legislative mechanisms to throw a roadblock in front of Foxwoods and Sugarhouse.
Mayor Street was for the casinos. Nutter is for the casinos but appears on television and in public ambivalent to them. Almost all of City Council wants the casinos because whether you are right or wrong, THEY believe it offers relief to what's already a gigantic deficit.
Philadelphia is grossly underpaying its obligation to the City pension fund, and I'm sure by now with the markets erasing tons of equity out there and the Funds returns on its fixed asset investments looking to be rather in doubt, more cash will be required by the City in the near future,
cash that the City of Philadelphia doesn't have.
In the short term, I think one quick fix is to chuck the RDA, layoff its staff, and start selling off assets. That should raise enough cash to plug the City's budget hole and not threaten to cut off funding for special projects.
Still doesn't answer questions about Market East
The issue of whether Philly has casinos or not is irrelevant to the issue of where these casinos go. The Mayor and the Governor may want casinos, but that doesn't mean we sell off Market East for them. There are a number of options that could have been explored so if speed was the issue then as Dan said why can't they focus on an "expedited piece of land" somewhere away from Philly neighborhoods?
The issue of whether Philly
Helen, this statement, particularly the first sentence is incorrect for a few reasons.
First, the Airport. While some agree this would be more preferable than downtown, presently the 10 mile buffer presence a complete obstacle to building a casino there. The executives at Harrahs who bid their project expecting not to have to compete with a casino within 10 miles would lobby very hard against such legislation. Moreover, so would the political class of Delaware County. The fact remains, we can't expand the airport to improve the flow of commerce and passengers in and out of Philadelphia International, which would provide a net positive to the City and region, due to political issues in Delaware County. Why would they accept a casino closer to the one they have already?
Moreover, the legislation that would remove the buffer is dead unless re-introduced in January.
Second, the process related to the legalization and initial siting of slot parlors, which most people have found to be questionable (at the very least), has been deemed acceptable by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on numerous occasions (whether you agree with the Court or not, they are the court of last resort). Licenses are site specific. They can be made portable by application only. Despite the discussions about Market East, Foxwoods has not made that application, yet.
Further, the Supreme Court has given Sugarhouse and Foxwoods the right to build in their current waterfront spots. The Special Master recently appointed at the request of Foxwoods is aimed at streamlining the permitting process.
Last, the process is developer driven. Aside from legislation (all casino legislation is pretty much dead unless re-introduced in the new year), the only process by which to move a casino is (1) leverage; and (2) affirmative action by either Foxwoods or Sugarhouse. For years we have worked to use (1), which includes legislative initiatives and other items to bring about (2). Many of us advocated for the Airport and areas away from neighborhoods. Neither Sugarhouse nor Foxwoods would move.
In this case, Foxwoods and Sugarhouse have the right to build on their waterfront sites. Either casino would have to make an application to the Gaming Board to make the license portable. That Foxwoods is considering a move is monumental in that it is the first time in Pennsylvania we're actually talking about actually re-siting. But, we're talking about re-siting because Foxwoods decided to consider moving. Their decision is not based on legal barriers (because there are none). Rather, because they want to get up and running.
There is no magic pill. Casinos will located in Philadelphia. That Foxwoods is considering a move underscores that the process is developer oriented, whether we agree with it or not. Thus, the issue of whether Philly has casinos IS very relevant to where they go. To lose sight of that is to lose sight of how to actually re-site a casino.
Without regard to my opinion on the Market East site, an open and transparent process is needed. Frankly, under the law, that process starts after the developer says they want to located in X. Not before. Presently, under DiCicco's CED process, Market East will receive a greater vetting than both the Gaming Board and the City gave to the Riverfront. That is mostly because Foxwoods is volunatarily agreeing to move. Ultimately, if it doesn't work, Foxwoods retains the right to build on the water, which is exactly why they haven't made their application to the Gaming Control Board.
Further, Councilman DiCicco's efforts to re-site casinos have been instrumental in the fact that at least one operator is considering moving. While you may not like the present site, Helen, does not mean that DiCicco hasn't worked very hard to make the process more fair to Philadelphians. I've been doing this for years now and, without Councilman DiCicco, we'd have 2 casinos on the water getting ready to open sometime soon. That isn’t the case.
The disagreement we have Gaetano
is not so much whether something happens but whether we believe citizens can do something about it. I'm of the belief that government can only do the right thing when they're driven toward it. Marginalized communities like Chinatown have had years of experience with the "pat on the head" attitude that government knows best for them. So . . . we'll see.
I think were we disagree is
I think were we disagree is your contention that siting is irrelevant to the fact that casinos are coming to Philadelphia. I believe the law, precedent and facts establish the relationship between the two. I gathered from your comment before that you didn't. Now I'm not really sure where you stand on that.
I don't think we disagree where you say we do. In fact, it almost seems like you're putting wods in my mouth. For at least 2.5 years, I've worked (with many others) to have government do the right thing on this issue. The results have been mixed at best. That doesn't mean the effort wasn't and isn't worthwhile. It also doesn't mean that the work stops.