Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

CHALLENGING STATE ON CASINOS

FIGHTING BACK WITH RAFT OF BILLS AND EFFORTS

WE ALL SHOULD send a thank-you note to Gov. Rendell for forcing casinos on the city (and the rest of the state.)

And while we're at it, let's send notes to the Pennsylvania Legislature, thanking them for passing the gaming legislation without a public hearing, and in the middle of the night when everyone else was sleeping.

An extra thanks goes to them for stripping away the city's zoning authority over casinos.

If the folks in Harrisburg had instead opted to introduce the idea of casinos in a different way - say, with lots of public debate, hearings, and a completely transparent selection process - we might still be at it, but we also wouldn't be seeing the kind of civic debate, backlash and legislative muscle-flexing that this issue has sparked.

This week, for example, City Councilman Frank DiCicco introduced a set of ordinances and bills to slow down or even halt the coming of casinos to the city. His proposals range from an outright ban on casinos to outlawing payday lenders from siting themselves close to casinos. His actions were spurred in part by some of the intense opposition he's heard from his constituents; both casino licenses were awarded in his district. Some of those citizens are moving ahead on their own track to challenge the state and the board's decisions,including a Casino-Free Philadelphia signature drive to attempt a charter change regulating casinos.

Pragmatists say these lawsuits have a snowball chance in hell's capacity to alter the legality of the casinos or the gaming board's decisions. The law, for example, gives very narrow definitions of who has standing to legally challenge the casino decisions. The state board is due to release its written order that will provide reasons for its licensing decisions any day now.

We are pragmatists, especially when confronting the economic reality: For every day a casino is delayed from opening, the state stands to lose about a half- million dollars. But we also believe these local actions are laudatory, if for no other reason than that they spur more public debate and provide more channels for people's voices.

It's also a good reminder to Harrisburg that while it may have might, it doesn't have right: if they don't build more public input into their lawmaking process, they'll have to deal with it later, and louder, in the law-challenging process. *