Court paves way for SugarHouse in Fishtown

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the SugarHouse Casino could be built on the city's waterfront in Fishtown, reversing an attempt by the Nutter administration to stymie the project.

The court decided, 4-2 with one abstention, that the city could not revoke the license giving SugarHouse the authority to build over the Delaware River that was issued during the last days of Mayor John F. Street's administration.

Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, writing the majority opinion, ruled that the Street administration acted according to city statutes when it issued the license on Nov. 27, and that the Nutter administration's Jan. 24 revocation of the license was improper.

"We recognize that there has been a change in the executive office in Philadelphia," Castille wrote, "but the view of the current director of commerce for the city does not affect or undermine the legitimate exercise of the authority reposed in the former director of commerce."

"We're grateful to the Supreme Court for ruling in our favor," Greg Carlin, chief executive officer of HSP Gaming, the developer of SugarHouse, said in an interview. He did not give specifics on when construction of the $700 million project on Delaware Avenue at Shackamaxon Street would begin.

City Hall's reaction was, as expected, glum.

Terry Gillen, senior adviser to the mayor, said it was too soon to gauge how the administration would react.

"We're disappointed with the ruling," Gillen said. "The city Law Department is studying the opinion and doing an internal analysis, and until they're done, we don't know what else it means for the city."

Other officials vowed that the battle to stop the casino from building was not over.

Mary Isaacson, chief of staff to State Rep. Michael O'Brien, whose district includes SugarHouse, said other legal alternatives remain.

"This is not the end in any way, shape or form. There are many more issues to be resolved," she said.

Residents opposed to SugarHouse were similarly hopeful about stopping the project.

Jethro Heiko of Casino-Free Philadelphia said he was not surprised by the ruling. "It doesn't change where we're at," he said. "The casinos are bad for the city, and Mayor Nutter and Gov. Rendell still want these things off the riverfront."

Donna Tomlinson, a board member of Fishtown Action, an organization of residents who favor building the casino, said, "We're all thrilled."

"We're just hoping the city doesn't give us any more stumbling blocks, and the permits start to go through," Tomlinson said.

SugarHouse is one of two casinos planned for the Philadelphia waterfront. The other is Foxwoods.

On Thursday, Rendell, Nutter, State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo and State Rep. Dwight Evans met with Foxwoods to discuss moving that casino's proposed building site, the South Philadelphia waterfront, to another location. Afterward, the four reported that Foxwoods was considering sites away from the river.

Rendell said he would similarly meet with SugarHouse officials to discuss moving off the river as well, but HSP Gaming has said it was committed to building in Fishtown.

Carlin said his company has "not taken the step that Foxwoods has taken" in terms of considering alternate sites. "But we're still planning on meeting with the governor and the mayor and other government officials to discuss our project."

The City of Philadelphia has been ordered by the Supreme Court to proceed with SugarHouse's land-use permits, though the Nutter administration has argued that it still may require the developer to meet its requirements regarding traffic and other impacts.

The chief obstacle to SugarHouse is the federally required archeological studies of the site, where American Indian and Revolutionary War artifacts have been uncovered.

The Army Corps of Engineers must be satisfied that any artifacts be removed before construction can begin, though SugarHouse has been permitted to remove the remnants and foundation of the Jack Frost sugar refinery on the site.

Two of the justices, Seamus P. McCaffrey and Thomas G. Saylor, wrote separate dissenting opinions, and Jane Cutler Greenspan recused herself.

Saylor wrote that the city's authority to decide what would happen to underwater lands was "extinguished" by a separate state law, and that the city law in question was never meant to apply to anything but wharves and piers.

McCaffrey wrote that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and not the city, had authority to grant permission to use submerged lands. The land beneath the Delaware is owned by the state.

"I believe that the city acted properly in revoking a license which it had no authority to have conferred," he wrote.