Letters: 'Expert' evaluation of casino sites lacks the human element

RE

"An Expert Tells How He Rated Casino Sites" (letters, Aug. 4):

What Mr. Furhman fails to mention both in his letter and his "expert" analysis are the thousands of homes and families in the vicinity of the sites he so glibly rates from five to 10.

I've never been in real estate, but I have been living for nearly 10 years in the area that will be affected by the potential SugarHouse development. I've been opposed to and working to resite SugarHouse from the day the license was awarded.

It would seem that Mr. Furhman evaluates sites like someone who's never lived in a neighborhood affected by a massive development or talked to anyone who's lived in one. His criteria are strictly functional: size of plot, cost to develop, access to public transit and convention visitors.

What about the neighbors who've made their lives there? Are they to just pick up and leave because experts deem the vicinity of their homes "convenient to conventioneers"?

The argument goes double for the Spectrum site: Have you ever talked to anyone near the Spectrum or stadiums? It's a constant fight to manage traffic and spillover from events. Add to that a 3 million-plus-square-foot facility with 24 liquor licenses and 3,000 slot machines. Are you kidding?

I respectfully suggest that Mr. Fuhrman's letter be considered what it is: an incomplete analysis that doesn't consider perhaps the most important issue in the Philadelphia casino issue:

The neighborhoods and way of life that will be forever damaged if a casino is built on the central Delaware waterfront.

Morgan Jones, Philadelphia