Anti-casino group's study says gambling costs will outweigh benefits to Philadelphia

An anti-casino group yesterday released a study warning that the arrival of riverfront gambling would cost Philadelphia more in hidden expenses than the city would receive in financial benefits.

Casino-Free Philadelphia calculated that the two planned slots parlors - Foxwoods in South Philadelphia and SugarHouse in Northern Liberties and Fishtown - would bring the city $76 million a year in fees, higher tax revenue, and wage-tax reductions.

But the advocacy group said those benefits would be offset by unseen costs that could result in a net loss to the city of $52 million a year.

Gov. Rendell's office dismissed the report.

"It's not a surprise that they can have a report manufactured that parrots their position," said Chuck Ardo, a spokesman for Rendell.

The analysis comes on the heels of Mayor Nutter's testimony last Friday that estimated a $14 million annual increase in police costs for the casinos - money Nutter said wasn't in the budget.

Terry Gillen, a senior adviser to Nutter on the casino issue, said the mayor's office was trying to calculate the true costs and benefits of casinos. The estimate on police costs came out of that exercise and was an attempt by the mayor to put his position on the record, she said.

Maureen Garrity, a spokeswoman for the Foxwoods casino, said she had not seen the full report from Casino-Free but was aware that it cited police costs.

She said the "host fees" that both casinos would pay the city - an estimated $23.6 million, according to the Nutter administration - should help to cover those expenses. In addition, Foxwoods reached a development agreement with the Street administration that will also provide funds for policing.

A spokeswoman for SugarHouse could not be reached for comment.

Casino-Free Philadelphia said most of the costs from casinos would come from higher spending for police; addiction and criminal justice services; and municipal services.

In addition, the anti-casino group cited research by Frederic Murphy, a Temple University economist, that anticipated local residents would shift discretionary dollars to gambling. Such a substitution would reduce non-gambling tax revenues, the report said.

The report also cited an "opportunity cost" - the lost cost for building something else on the riverfront. Casino-Free included port expansion and riverfront development as outlined by the city-commissioned PennPraxis development study as examples.

Casino-Free also calculated that property values near the casinos would drop by $4.2 million.

The anti-casino group asked Robert Goodman, a professor at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and former director of the United States Gambling Research Institute, to review its analysis. In a telephone interview, he said it raised valid concerns.

Goodman said state legislatures that adopted gambling too often focused on the revenue side of the equation.

He said the proposed riverfront casinos were a form of "convenience gambling."

"You're basically sucking money out of your economy unless you can replicate something like Las Vegas," Goodman said.