I think I have changed my mind on the Foxwoods thing. Why? Because the casino may save Market Street. Additionally, it may fix public schools, may be a catalyst for reversing the suburbanization of the last 50 years, and may result in me getting a pony. Not only that, but the casino may end the Philadelphia championship drought, and may result in all of Philadelphia gathering in the streets, locked hand in hand, singing show tunes. Think about Ray leading us all in song! It will be wild!

If I told you that, you would think I was crazy, right? And in response to any of it, you might ask for something- anything- that would show that my claims are backed up by any evidence at all. Right?

That is why I am dumbfounded by this article, from today's Inquirer, titled "Casino may save Market East."

The article is lengthy- over 1,400 words and interesting, because it goes over a fairly significant amount of the neighborhood's history. And, the best part of the article is the evidence that shows a Casino has ever 'saved' a City:

Ohhhh, right, it doesn't. I wonder why that is?

If the Mayor and Governor want to argue why this Casino will be so different- and convince Chinatown residents, business owners and Philadelphia as a whole, go for it. But to pretend that it is at all likely that a slots barn will 'save' Market East, without a single shred of evidence, is ridiculous.

When officials began a news conference yesterday celebrating the planned move of the Foxwoods Casino to Center City, the audience already was sprinkled with protest signs held by community opponents, many from nearby Chinatown....

Nutter and Rendell said that they hope that the project will revive the Gallery, which was built in the 1970s and '80s with government assistance, and they believe that it will trigger further development on Market Street East.

If you want to feel really 'happy', check out a few headlines this AM from the Inquirer:

-Demand Heavy for Philabundance food program

-Homelessness increased in Phila., decreased nationally in 2007

And, the ever-cheery:

-Housing Phila. homeless could pit poor against poor

.......

Barack Obama is going to kick John McCain's ass in Pennsylvania:

In Pennsylvania, Democrat Barack Obama has opened up a big, early lead over Republican John McCain - in the number of local offices.

Obama has 24, McCain has three, not counting an additional seven that serve all Republican candidates.

Whether this gap ultimately makes any difference as to who wins Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes Nov. 4 remains to be seen.

But Obama's strategists say the offices are part of a highly structured, volunteer-heavy plan to help carry a state that is must-win for Obama and high on McCain's wish list.

In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Craig Schirmer, who is running Obama's Pennsylvania campaign, laid out a plan to create more than 700 neighborhood teams to cover the state.

Oh, by the way, the Pollster.com average now has Obama up by ten points.

.........

And, Penn Praxis said that the Casinos, as presently designed, don't mix with their plans for the Delaware waterfront:

A group of architectural and traffic experts last night concluded that plans for two proposed riverfront casinos are not compatible with the city's long-term plan to redevelop the banks of the Delaware River.

That comes as little surprise to the casino developers, who refused to participate in the discussion, run by the academic group PennPraxis, because they considered the outcome preordained.

The reaction of the casino owners is great. Apparently we are supposed to be outraged that the accolade winning design for the Delaware doesn't have a spot in it for two ugly slot barns, with two huge accompanying parking lots.

How dare they!

Thanks to all out organizing and pressure from the Philadelphia Neigborhood Alliance and Casino Free Philadelphia, it looks like two Sugarhouse and Foxwoods will be forced to move. Gov. Rendell has now joined Vince Fumo and Dwight Evans in telling Sugarhouse and Foxwoods that they have to move. When the Governor (the long time backer of bringing Casinos to Philly and PA) and Fumo (whose office wrote the bill) are telling these guys to move, you know they are in trouble.

And so, Fishtown and South Philly are saved from the potential devastation that a Casino can bring.

But...

Where now?

It still doesn't make sense to put a Casino in East Falls (or anywhere in Philadelphia, for that matter). It still doesn't make sense to kill potential developments at the Navy Yard with a windowless slot barn. Where the hell are these things going to go, and what is going to be done to make sure that the next neighborhood that is 'selected' truly wants a Casino there?

From a technical perspective, where do we go from here? Another set of hearings with the gaming review board?

And, after spending 2 years assuming that Casinos were going to go elsewhere, how do we protect neighborhoods that didn't think they would have to organize anymore (or ever) against these behemoths? The worst possible outcome is that as a result of this pressure, there is simply a backroom deal that puts the Casinos in two new neighborhoods, where the tried and true divide-and-conquer approach will be taken with community groups to grease the skids of casinos.

So, Casino Free Philadelphia, Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance, Bill Green and others: What is going to happen to make sure that mistakes are not repeated, and new Philly neighborhoods are not damaged? Where do we go from here?

Harrisburg – Late on July 3, 2008, Senator Vincent Fumo and House Appropriations Chairman Dwight Evans held a press conference announcing a meeting with Governor Ed Rendell aimed at relocating the proposed casinos in Philadelphia. The Senate and House leaders vowed that if the casinos are not moved, they will introduce legislation that will make the gaming institutions ineligible to receive Philadelphia's ten-year tax abatement, valued in the tens of millions of dollars.

Has Pennsylvania's highest court been compromised by greed and political corruption? A year ago, when I first got involved with working to keep casinos out of Philadelphia neighborhoods, I might have been shocked by the very idea. Now the question seems appropriate.

On Monday, the League of Women Voters (“LWV”) filed a federal law suit that makes a stunning allegation: it alleges that former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy secretly met with legislative leaders and struck a deal to uphold the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's slots casino bill in return for a pay hike in the form of . . . wait for it . . . the now infamous pay raise of 2006. Furthermore, the complaint asserts that these types of alleged shenanigans date back a decade to the mid-nineties. Check out the LWV case by clicking here.

Meanwhile, keep in mind that both the gaming act and the pay raise were passed by the General Assembly through a process called "gut-and-replace" whereby a law is stripped of its original language and intent, and rushed to a vote without the mandated three days of public review in both the House and the Senate. This is a clear violation of Article 3 of the Constitution and last year a lower court struck down a perfectly nice 2002 hate-crimes bill, finding the "gut-and-replace" tactic to be unconstitutional.

Though some observers have questioned whether the LWV's case will succeed, few familiar with the history of the court's decisions regarding casinos are shocked or surprised by the accusations that the Court might have lost its independence.

Is it true? If not, why would a respected nonpartisan group such as the League of Women Voters put its reputation on the line? And their case isn't the only place where you can hear these questions raised about justices and injustice.

Take this month's Philadelphia Magazine story about the feud between former friends and political allies Senator Vince Fumo and SugarHouse investor Richard Sprague as exhibit B. In his article, Robert Huber explains that:

These days, Dick Sprague helps watch over the State Supreme Court from his perch on its disciplinary committee, which is chaired by Bill Lamb, an ex-justice who is one of Sprague's closest friends. So close that Fumo sometimes referred to them in phone conversation as the "tennis player" – Sprague–and his partner–Lamb.

Check out the entire article here.

Well guess what? You can cue up the spooky music because Bill Lamb is also an investor in SugarHouse. Huber goes on to slyly note that the gambling bill written by Fumo in 2004 has "a provision that legal challenges get fast-tracked past the lower courts and go right to the Supremes. At press-time, in the 11 separate matters involving SugarHouse that have been decided by the court, the casino has gotten favorable rulings 11 times."

Get ready for ruling number 12.

At the end of his last term, Mayor John Street granted SugarHouse Casino a license to build on 11 acres of riparian land along the Delaware River despite the fact that under current law only the state legislature, not the city, has the legal authority to lease these riparian lands. (For a more detailed account of the case, check out this Plan Philly article.) Mayor Michael Nutter, Philadelphia City Council, and members of Philadelphia's legislative delegation, including Representatives Mike O'Brien and Bill Keller and Senator Fumo now are asserting in court that Street overstepped his legal authority. If SugarHouse wins its 12th legal case, it will be in blatant defiance of existing law, our city officials, state officials and basic common sense.

If the allegations in the League of Women Voters' case are true, then does that put all the casino cases under a cloud of suspicion? Is the Delaware riverfront being held hostage to a political conspiracy?

So what to do? To save democracy and declare our independence just like our fore-fathers did in 1773, Casino-Free Philadelphia is throwing a Tea Party.

The first step is to shine a light. The SugarHouse case could be decided as soon as today, so we're sending the Supremes a message to let them know we are watching. We expect the Court to operate within the very same laws that they are sworn to uphold.

Here is how our Tea Party will work: If you donate to Casino-Free Philadelphia, we will put your name and personalized message on a card, enclose an actual tea bag, and mail it to the Supreme Court. The minimum donation is $1 to cover the costs of postage, materials and tea! Click here to take part. Additional funds donated will be used by Casino-Free Philadelphia to help fund all their efforts to keep casinos out of Philadelphia's neighborhoods.

Click here to participate.

We will also deliver the names and messages of those who participate to City Council, our legislators, and Mayor Nutter to thank them for standing shoulder to shoulder with the people of Philadelphia and to let them know that we will continue to resist.

If the Supreme Court is dealing away our democracy and refusing to uphold the law, then maybe our city has no choice but to revolt, peaceably of course.

Both the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote stories in the past two days discussing the financial support that Sugarhouse Casino majority-owner Neil Bluhm has provided to the presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama. As the Inquirer tells us:

The Obama campaign said yesterday it saw nothing inconsistent in the senator's accepting support from Neil G. Bluhm, a Chicago-based real estate developer. According to the Washington Post, Bluhm has bundled together $78,000 in contributions from himself and his family.

Mr. Obama's position on casino gambling seems confusing at best. He made one oft-mentioned quote to the Chicago Defender back as a State Senator, fighting the then-Governor of Illinois Rod Blogojevich's hopes to patch up a budget deficit with casino receipts, saying that the "moral and social cost of gambling, particularly in low income communities could be devastating." But during and after his hard-fought race for the presidential primary win in the Nevada caucus, he defended himself against Clinton camp attacks on his gambling positions by saying:

Asked in February about his views, Obama told The Associated Press that Nevada should be proud of how it's used gambling as a "very successful economic model."

"The concerns that I had in Illinois related to the way in which those who own these (gambling river) boats had a very exclusive monopoly, were making enormous contributions to the state Legislature and were having a disproportionate influence on the legislation," Obama said.

Obama also was a critic of lawmakers accepting political contributions from gambling interests that were seeking permits from the Illinois Legislature.

The Senator said he continued to believe there is "certainly a potential moral and social cost to gambling, if it's not properly regulated, if children have access to it. It's something I continue to be concerned about."

Our friends over at Old Philly Politics A.K.A. The Public Record have a pretty interesting editorial in this week's paper. The crux of it is this:

In a campaign that proved wildly popular with the citizenry, Mike Nutter proposed to spend more on police, health programs, arts programs, schools and Community College. He is opening up new offices in City Hall as fast as desks can be delivered – for business, culture, public relations, transportation, zoning and housing, to name but a few.

At the same time, Nutter is determined to keep cutting the City’s destructive business and wage taxes. Great! In the long run, a healthier business environment will pump revenues in a healthier way.

In the short term, however, it looks like we’re walking into a recession. That can wreak havoc with the Mayor’s best-laid plans. If a general economic downturn affects our region, a wide range of business and wage taxes will drop.

The real-estate market is cooling off at the same time. This will lead to lower earnings from the transfer tax.

The city cannot afford, in 2008, to turn away any longer from the immediate economic benefits of casino construction.

I think slots casinos are one of the worst ideas for economic development proposed for this city in a long time (right up there with raising Black Bottom for Penn in the 50's, "slum clearance" on South Street via the Crosstown Expressway, stadiums and convention centers, etc. And could only be made worse by adding tables games to the mix). I am very happy they have still not been built.

However, this editorial (and the front-page story of the Public Record) make it clear that pro-casino forces are getting antsy.

And positioning casino revenue as a way to fund BPT tax cuts is very, very interesting to me.

I am curious to know who is pushing this idea behind the scenes and how much traction it will gain. It's certainly an argument that could put a lot of us in a weird place, i.e. united.

Governor Rendell has grown increasingly isolated as a politician still openly advocating for the development of SugarHouse and Foxwoods casinos in Philadelphia. Not only has he dismissed and become increasingly hostile to the residents who oppose these developments but he has also failed to provide a solid cost/benefit analysis to back up his claims of the economic benefits of casinos.

Governor Rendell claims that casinos will bring 7,000 new jobs into the city while an independent study by Temple economics professor, Fred Murphy, shows casinos could create net job loss of 5,900 jobs. Rendell has budget only .001% of casino revenue to deal with gambling addiction when it could cost the city up to 2,000 times more to deal with the impact of those new addicts. Many of the studies done to date give no estimate for costs of things like reduction in property values, medical emergency services and other municipal costs, reduction in taxes from businesses that close due to competition with casinos and the opportunity cost of using the Delaware Riverfront for other projects.

These numbers have led many people to believe that the figures that the Governor has been using to promote casinos as a panacea for the economy are grossly overstated and misleading. For the past few weeks, Casino-Free Philadelphia has been on a campaign to create more accountability to the hidden costs of casinos. On April 10th, Casino-Free Philadelphia will be gathering at the Governor's Philadelphia office for a "debate-in," (like a sit-in) and plan to stay at Rendell's office until he agrees to a debate on the costs/benefits of casinos. Casino-Free is inviting any member of the public who wants to come observe the action to show up on April 10th.

For more information go to www.casinofreephila.org or contact Lily Cavanagh at lily@casinofreephila.org.

Here is a short film we produced for the Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance (PNA) as part of their testimony against the proposed Casino Entertainment District for the Foxwoods' site in South Philadelphia. It features footage of former Planning Commission Executive Director Janice Woodcock admitting what a lot of people know; neither the Foxwoods or Sugarhouse sites work for the waterfront or neighborhoods. I hope you like it and will pass it around.

Sugarhouse, the proposed riverfront casino on the Fishtown/Northern Liberties border, needs to build on some submerged land owned by the state. The Street administration issued them a license to build on that land, which provoked lawsuits from state lawmakers and Philadelphia City Council, who claimed that the city had no right to issue that license.

Well, Michael Nutter just either made that lawsuit moot or upped the ante by revoking the license awarded by the city.

From the Inquirer:

At a City Hall news conference, he used harsh language to criticize the city action that preceded him, saying the license was "issued in error" by the city Commerce Department and was "unnecessarily rushed."

SugarHouse will have 30 days to appeal to the city to issue the license again, but only after a more extensive review process, Nutter said. He did not say how long that process would take - "it will be reasonable' - if SugarHouse chose to appeal...

The mayor reiterated that he is not a fan of the site for the SugarHouse or the Foxwoods casinos. In the case of SugarHouse, he said, concerns about traffic, parking, congestion and more were "brushed to the side" by the Street administration in a process that he characterized as improper. "It was an abuse of a discretion," Nutter said.

We’ve entered an ugly phase in the fight against casinos. Our lame duck mayor has tried to paint the city into a corner through backroom deals. The casinos, desperate to break ground before Mayor Nutter takes office, have their public relations machines beating the drums of inevitability in the hopes that the citizens will simply give up. Furthermore, a recent spate of articles have attempted to brand those of us who continue to oppose these casinos as a bunch of crazies who care more about traffic congestion or saving the “soul” of the city than cutting property taxes and creating jobs.

VOTE "NO" ON JUSTICE THOMAS G. SAYLOR

Casino-Free Philadelphia urges everyone to go to the polls on November 6th and vote "NO" on Republican Thomas G. Saylor.

Remember the ballot question to create a 1,500-foot buffer zone between casinos and homes? Remember how instead of being on the ballot, large white stickers were pasted over that said: "Removed by Court Order"?

Whether you agreed or not with the ballot question, you have a right to your vote. Justice Saylor is responsible for restricting that right.

THEN: TAKING POWER AWAY

When the original gambling act was slid beneath the public's radar in summer of 2004 with no public input, Saylor and the rest of the Supreme Court upheld the law. In doing so, they opened the floodgates for taking power away from the voters.

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.