Dec. 2
By Kellie Patrick Gates
For PlanPhilly
A group of state legislators is calling on Pennsylvania to revoke Foxwoods Casino's license and award it to another interest.
The representatives and senators – republicans and democrats from the city and suburbs – held a press conference in the rain late Wednesday afternoon. They said that Foxwoods' failure to file engineering and site drawings by Dec. 1 – a condition imposed by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board earlier this year when it gave Foxwoods a two-year extension to get its casino up and running – was the final straw.
“Foxwoods is dead wood, it is time for them to be pruned,” said State Rep. Michael O'Brien of Philadelphia. Also present were state representatives Babette Josephs, John Taylor and Mike McGeehan of Philadelphia, Curt Schroder of Delaware County and Mike Vereb of Montgomery County, and senators Lawrence Farnese and Michael Stack.
But Foxwoods says there are good and practical reasons why the site plans, engineering work, and a detailed schedule of when construction will start and finish couldn't be finished by Dec. 1. It outlines them in a formal request asking to have that deadline pushed back to March 1, 2010 – the same date by which they must provide a financing plan to the state.
In that request, filed on the last day of November, Foxwoods attorneys say their client is working very hard to put the financing in place in very difficult economic times. They are confident that will happen by March 1, but it hasn't happened yet, Stephen Cozen and the other attorneys wrote. And, the lawyers say, until the money picture becomes clear, it isn't possible to say what the casino will look like.
Foxwoods hasn't been able to produce the detailed reports the state wants. The brief stated that because “... of necessity, the source, manner, timing and amounts of financing and funding for the development of the facility will dictate many of the details that must go into the renderings, proposals, opinions, other documents and timelines referenced (in the PGCB order) although (Foxwoods) is fully capable, if necessary and approved by the board, of constructing a temporary facility at its site if need be.”
This reasoning and the rest of the explanation outlined in Foxwoods' request didn't make any difference to the legislators.
"To date, Foxwoods has only submitted a letter saying they still have no plans, permits, or financing - but that they want more time to build a temporary facility," Farnese said in a press release. "Foxwoods keeps showing up for class and claiming the dog ate my homework.”
The legislators said given the Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement investigation under way in the awarding of Category 2 licenses, it is not prudent to consider any further extensions legislatively or by the PGCB.
PGCB spokesman Richard McGarvey said the Board's Bureau of Investigations and Enforcement must read and respond to the request before it comes before the Board for consideration.
O'Brien said a response must be made within 30 days. He would not say whether he or his colleagues will take any further action to try to convince the board to see things their way.
“The board has a fiduciary obligation to get things up and running,” he said. “The board needs to take the license, open up a competitive, fair bidding process and reissue it,” he said.
If that happens, O'Brien said he will fight to convince all parties that the winning bid should have a different location. He and other legislators – along with city officials and many city residents – believe the Foxwoods' site is a bad location for a casino, due to traffic issues and other concerns.
At the city's urging, Foxwoods had chosen an alternative site – the former Strawbridge building. But the developers never formally requested a change of venue from the Gaming Control Board. And in the language of the two-year extension, the PGCB made it clear they wanted Foxwoods to stay at thei original site.
Contact the reporter at kelliespatrick@gmail.com
- About
- News
- Neighborhoods
- Issues
- Praxis Projects
- Event
- Design Matters
- Participate
Comments
Representative O'Brian is correct! Why should Foxwood be granted any special favours especially when the surrounding neighbourhood does not want Foxwood located there! Out out damm casino!
I agree fully with O'Brien et al. The foisting of these casinos on the residents of Philadelphia has always been dubious, at best. Considering that the ranks of vested interests in both riverside casino projects are so heavily influential to decisions made (by a self-administrating gaggle of elected state officials, insider law firms and investors, a quorum of manipulable Pa. Supreme Court justices, and a malignantly impetuous state Gaming Control Board), it becomes painfully obvious just how "stacked the deck" has been since the initial cloak-of-darkness, backroom dealmaking of three years past. Even with all of the political and financial advantages, the Foxwoods Group has been unable to satisfy requirements. Level playing field aside, the most recent breach of agreement should securely represent the final coffin nail for this miserable, failed venture. Reasonably, a lot of folks see this as a golden opportunity to return to honest evaluation of the concepts and processes behind casino selection and placement. And, hopefully, this time around the public will have a fair forum within which to voice issues and concerns; the way democracy was originally intended to operate (in the pre-Rendell Era...)
The request for an extension should be denied!!!
Obviously no one on the Planning Commission has ever been to Palmyra Cove Nature Preserve to see how valuable and beautiful it is. And the Commission has no experience with the need for riparian habitat for birds, butterflies, etc. A casino has no use for the river. Once inside gambling and getting entertained, they could care less what is out the windows. I have photos of all those areas along with river of birds that will never be there again if your entertainment site is put on the river. (And those two tall apartment buildings (excuse me, condos) are an eyesore, they look like housing developments.) This is just a cheap shot to make money at a long term loss. And that skinny little strip of a park you talk about making along the river is just not wide enough. Google the area at Palmyra and see how big that is, and how much nature it produces. Put your casino in the middle of the City, not by the river.
I agree. The only case where a casino should be considered near the river is a docked riverboat casino (like refitting the SS United States).