NUTTER: Input on Casino Locations

It should be a well-planned zoning process that promotes the health, safety, and welfare of Philadelphia residents. I do not support gambling as an economic development tool or as a way to fund ongoing government programs, no matter how worthy.

There is highly controversial evidence about whether the benefits are sustainable over time and whether those benefits exceed the substantial costs of gambling and the facilities that house it. One of my opponents supported this policy in the General Assembly and that is one of many differences between us. But this debate is properly one to be held in Harrisburg.

What does concern Philadelphia is the process by which casino gambling is coming to our city. That process is flawed and inappropriate. Of the many problems in that process, the most consequential was the link made between operators and locations in the awarding of licenses, which obscured any thoughtful debate over neighborhood impacts.

Philadelphians are right to protest the decisions made under that flawed process. I support placing the question on the May ballot, as voted unanimously by City Council last week. That question does not challenge the state’s basic proposal for casino gambling in Philadelphia, but rather addresses only the specific question of location.

The state Supreme Court was very clear in its decision stating that if the legislature wanted to take away our zoning powers then the legislature must provide the City with clear standards. In response, the legislature did not take away those powers or provide clear standards, but simply rushed an expedient and half-baked amended version of the gaming legislation. That amended legislation does not do want the Court told the legislature to do. In effect, we still have our power to control the land use aspects of gaming in the City, including the siting of the casinos.

The legislature dropped the ball. The citizens of Philadelphia have picked it up and I support their thoughtful and energetic campaign to fix the bad decisions made by a flawed process. I am confident that the Supreme Court will, in fact, uphold the zoning rule reflected in the referendum as a legitimate exercise of our zoning powers. This may well force the legislature to take them away. But I welcome the open debate that would follow such a heavy-handed exercise of raw power by the legislature.

Assuming that the referendum passes, and I believe it will overwhelmingly, then the issue will be to quickly find new locations, ones that follow the new 1500 foot rule, for the two existing operators. This should be done quickly in order to pursue the policy goals that the Governor and legislature have every right to legislate. Our fight is with the process. The referendum will allow is to fix its biggest flaw: the marriage of operators and locations and I ask Philadelphians to vote yes on the ballot question.

WANT TO COMMENT? Learn how to add your comments.