- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
- You know, let's not even worry about the City Commissioners office messing up voter registration processing
- Bold ideas to fix the budget
- Mayor Nutter's Town Hall Meeting Schedule
- City Releases Library Information to City Council
- Size of Philadelphia government?
The Referendum is Good for the City
Submitted by AJThomson on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 5:52pm.
This ran in today's Daily News.
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20070321_Casino_vote_is_good_for...
LET'S SAY YOU invite a friend over to live with you.
On his way over, he walks through a field and his boots are covered in mud. You've decided to have this person live with you and are excited to have his company and to help pay the rent.
If he doesn't remove his shoes, he's going to track mud all over your house. The whole time he's there, you're going to worry about the damage he's doing instead of his contributions to your life and the lower bills you're going to pay.
To avoid this, you can ask the friend to take off his shoes so he doesn't ruin your house, and you can enjoy your time together.
Though not a perfect analogy, this is quite similar to the state of casino gaming and its hopefully delayed entry to our city.
The citizens of Philadelphia, our City Council and mayor own the house. The friends with the dirty shoes are the governor and his casino crew. While some would argue that the governor and his crew are uninvited guests, they would beg to differ, and it seems like they won't leave our doorstep until we let them in.
So we'll reluctantly call them guests. But their shoes are muddier than most, and it seems that their socks are dirty, too. It's time for the city to enforce its house rules and ask the governor and his crew to take off their shoes and socks before they ruin the carpets. After all, it's our house. We make the rules.
Recently, thousands of our neighbors banded together to circulate and sign a petition in the greatest act of citizen-initiated democracy of my adult lifetime.
Though the petition and its requirements are important as they seek to change the location of the sites chosen for two casinos in our city, they also boldly defy a Soviet-like process and a nonresponsive legislature while giving Philadelphians the right to control the expansion of an industry so questionable that, thus far, it has been excluded from almost every major city in our nation.
This referendum gives those of us with children and grandchildren and those who want to see the best Philadelphia for future generations a chance to fully examine an issue that to date has not received the kind of treatment from the state legislature that it so clearly deserves.
I'm not against casino gambling in the city. I believe that, "done right," gaming can benefit the city and the waterfront. But "done right" is a large qualifier.
As someone who has spent about as many hours on this issue as I have sleeping over the last year or so, I can't emphasize enough that we are in no way close to putting a "done right" stamp of approval on the spiraling mess that the legislature and gaming board have dumped onto the communities along the Delaware River.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Nice job
Glad to see other progressives published in the Daily News. They have really had a lot of good op-eds on the casino issue.
---
http://benwaxman.com
If Held, Casino Referendum Will Be Important
Assuming that the City Council overrides Mayor Street's veto and no court kicks the referendum off the ballot, it will be a very important vote cast by the voters on primary election day.
Mayors Ed Rendell and John Street lobbied very hard to have casinos within the City of Philadelphia, as did the AFL-CIO, the Building Trades, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Philadelphia Hotel Association. Many individual gamblers and would-be gamblers also let their legislators know that they wanted a chance to gamble on slot machines in Philadelphia too. Public opinion polls also showed strong majority support for legalized slot machines within Philadelphia.
Passing the City Council authorized referendum would send the legislature an opposite message. It would show the legislature that many Philadelphians are determined to resist casinos and all they bring with them.
The legislature would have a variety of options. It could use the great success of the first four operating casinos as a reason to believe that the goal of $1 billion a year in tax relief can be achieved without casinos in Philadelphia. It could establish two or more casinos in other places--say Montgomery and Chester counties, for instance. And it could overrule the voters of Philadelphia and decide to ban the city from regulating zoning of casinos in a manner than keeps them out of almost the entire city.
The higher the casino referendum turnout, the stronger the message will be. A negative vote will keep casinos going as scheduled, leaving residents of affected areas to battle it out before the zoning board and the Supreme Court. A positive vote will force a serious reconsideration of the wisdom of casinos in Philadelphia.
I think a high turnout is
I think a high turnout is actually going to be a drawback for the anti-casino group. In an election year not as important as this where people are coming out for mayoral and district races, I would say less people voting in favor of the referendum would have come out to vote and people against would have made it a point to vote.
Now, the question for you is, as a very senior member of the House, if the referendum is passed, what would you plan on doing to represent Philadelphia? You said the legislature has a variety of options. What would your stance and actions be if the referendum is passed?
Would you and your
Would you and your colleagues vote for Act 71, including those portions dealing with Class 2 licenses a second time? You knew there would be two slot parlors in Philadelphia (at least 2). It was also pretty likely one (or both) would be in the riverwards. Did you think to reach out to those people to see what they thought?
Also, while we are on the topic, if you actually read Act 71, which I have a number of times, you would know it is one of the worst drafted pieces of legislation ever. It fails to take into account any social impacts to gaming and community by design. The first Casino Free Philadelphia lawsuit says it all. Don't you think it is unfortunate that we are in this position? Don't you also think someone from the Philadelphia delegation could have stepped up and offered amendments to Act 71 that would take into consideration these issues?
No one did. This was a another MIDNIGHT bill. And, the first bill did, in fact, take zoning power from the localities. It is fortunate that the State Supreme Court had more sense than the legislature related to the PAGE lawsuit.
This is what happens when you have (1) a bad bill; (2) no one asks Philadelphians what they think; and (3) no one cares. Plain and simple, the Philadelphia delegation let us down. I live near the Foxwoods site. Many of the esteemed Representatives do not. But, Mr. Cohen, would you like a casino 500 feet from your door (the one in Philadelphia)?
What Any Legislators Will Do Depends on the Votes
What any legislators will do depends on the votes and the mayoral candidates. The higher the turnout for the anti-casino amendment, and the better the showing of candidates who agree with it for mayor and other offices, the stronger the pressure on the legislature will be.
If hypothetically, only 10% so of the people who vote for mayor vote on the casino question, and it squeaks through by 32 votes after two months of recounts, it will not demonstrate very much of a public mandate. If, on the other hand, 80% of the people who vote for mayor vote on the casino question, and it gets 80% of the vote, then all of us in the Philadelphia delegation will become enthusiastic supporters of keeping casinos out of Philadelphia.
Government at all levels can be very responsive to public opinion when public opinion is clear. In the absence of clear public opinion, it becomes very difficult to defeat entrenched special interests.
The bill as enacted took for granted that there was a public consensus that the reduced taxes and new jobs and additional city revenues that casino gaming promised would offset the negative social impact of increased gambling.
If the casino charter change is to have a major public impact, the case for the high negative social impact will have to made with greater clarity. The first ad for Casino Free Philadelphia does not mention a negative social impact, and Irv Acklesberg's suit against the Casino Control Commission cites a variety of studies finding that there has been in some places a negative social impact of casino gaming, but notes objectively that there are other studies to the contrary.
Every mayoal candidate at
Every mayoal candidate at the forum this week expressed support for the referendum. Now, I want to know--in your divisions will you come out swinging for Philadelphians or stay quiet for gaming interests? I would hope that you use a PSA to support this referendum. Or, that you go to polling places to do the same.
This is all dependent on what you think about it. Well?
I don't mean to be pushy, but Philadelphia is the only place I ever lived. I'm frustrated with my state delegation. I'm frustrated that they passed a bad bill. I'm acutely aware of the CFP lawsuit and theory. I work in government procurement. I know how projects similar to this are run. I know this process was bad from the start. I know the statute is bad. I love this city--and I love South Philadelphia. I don't want it to become a haven for bus tours, prostitution and the like. No matter what study you point to, this is an experiment. No one has attempted to put a new casino in the one of America's most dense urban settings, let alone stable communities. Detroit is no example either. I could go back and forth all day. I like so many others live this issue. And, considering my own credentials on this issue and in government procurement--I can really attest to this terrible law.
I almost think no one read it. Did you read it page by page before voting on something that could fundamentally alter the lives of so many Philadelphians?
Is it common for a lot of
Is it common for a lot of people to not vote a yes or a no on a ballot question even though they are already in the booth?
Do you have any numbers of previous examples? I would find that amazing.
I Am Listening
I am listening to the arguments that are being made. I have no constituents within 1500 feet of any proposed casino. I am not, and do not pretend to be, a leader in the anti-casino effort.
None of the people who are leaders in the 2007 anti-casino effort contacted me before the vote on casinos in 2004 or have contacted me on the referendum question.
When people did contact me in 2006 on the question of rights to have a hearing before the zoning board, I united virtually all House Democrats to support my amendment creating such a right, and giving the loser before the zoning board direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Because of pressure from his constituents on behalf of zoning board hearings, Senator Fumo had his staff call my office, and inserted the language I had introduced into the legislation which passed the Senate, and then the House.
Mayoral and city candidates will have workers at the polls this May because they are running for office this year. I am not running for office this year, and I am not a wardleader. I suggest you and others contact the candidates who will be on the ballot and Democratic and Republican wardleaders to get their ballots to include mention of and suggested instructions for voting on the charter change.
Public service announcements paid for with govermental funds are properly used to publicize governmental programs, and help that is being offered in signing people up for them or otherwise educating people about them. They are not properly used for advocacy in referendum questions.