Bill to challenge casinos' locations

Calling Pennsylvania's gaming law flawed, three Philadelphia legislators will introduce a bill in Harrisburg to find new locations for the city's two proposed casinos.

In addition, the proposed legislation would waive a ban on placing Philadelphia casinos within 10 miles of existing racetrack slots facilities, thus allowing developers to consider more sites near the Philadelphia International Airport.

Currently, any project must be 10 miles from the Harrah's slots parlor in Chester, as well as a similar racetrack slots facility at Philadelphia Park in Bensalem.

Yesterday, as Gov. Rendell was heading into his Center City office, he said he would veto such legislation "in two seconds."

Rendell called the proposal "illegal" given the 10-mile limit around projects. "The bottom line is those two casinos are going to be built in those two locations."

The developers of Philadelphia's two proposed riverfront casinos are facing stiff public resistance, as well as court challenges to their projects. The sites were selected in December 2006 by the state's Gaming Control Board with limited public input.

"These are bad sites from a land-use point of view, and they simply don't work," said State Rep. Mike O'Brien.

The SugarHouse casino occupies 22 acres in Fishtown and Northern Liberties, while the Foxwoods facility is proposed for the Pennsport section of South Philadelphia.

O'Brien, whose district includes the SugarHouse site, is sponsoring the bill in the House with State Rep. Bill Keller, a Democrat whose district includes the Foxwoods site. They are joined in the Senate by the primary author of the state's gaming law, State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, an outgoing Democrat whose district includes both projects.

Gary Tuma, a spokesman for Fumo, said the gaming bill that was crafted in 2004 was the product of intense negotiations.

"In most of the state, that's worked out very well," Tuma said. "It has not in Philadelphia."

Under the legislation, the Gaming Board would still work with the two developers already selected for casinos. The board, however, would hold hearings and take input from licensees, neighborhood civic associations, and city and state officials.

Within 180 days of that, the board would either approve a relocation or revoke licenses and reopen the application process.

Leigh Whitaker, a spokeswoman for SugarHouse, called the bill "another delay tactic."

"If this bill were to pass, this would essentially open up the entire licensing process, subject the Gaming Board to a new series of lawsuits, result in the loss to the commonwealth and its taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and blow a huge hole in the city's five-year plan," which includes gambling revenue in fiscal 2010, Whitaker said.

"In addition, SugarHouse, who was awarded this license under the original gaming law, would certainly look to recoup all of the money it has spent developing this project," she said.

Maureen Garrity, a Foxwoods spokeswoman, said the proposal "entirely ignores the Supreme Court's ruling that supports our right to build and allows us to move this project forward."

Yesterday, meanwhile, City Council held the last of four hearings on the Foxwoods development.

Carl Primavera, an attorney for Foxwoods, spelled out for Council the terms of the project's development agreement with the city, which was signed in the final days of the Street administration.

He said the company had agreed to contribute $1 million to a special services district; $1.75 million in annual taxes; and $5 million for upgrades to sewer mains near Tasker Avenue and Reed Street.

City Solicitor Shelley R. Smith testified, however, that the agreement did not cover the cost of added police personnel to staff the casino area.

She added that it also did not detail future contributions from the casino if an off-ramp has to be added to I-95 to accommodate traffic.