Casinos see renewed challenge

It's been a bad couple of weeks for casinos in Philadelphia.

Last week, City Council unanimously voted to put a proposed amendment to the city charter on the ballot in the May mayoral elections that would, in effect, ban slots parlors in Philadelphia.

And in a memo written to Mayor John Street on Friday, City Solicitor Romulo Diaz warned that the mayor had no legal way of stopping the charter amendment from being put to the voters.

The proposed amendment was pushed by anti-casino activists and would rewrite zoning laws to essentially limit casinos to undesirable areas of the city

Thus, if passed, it would likely be impossible for the two approved casinos to be built on either end of the Delaware riverfront.

Street spokesman Joe Grace said the mayor "will most likely veto the bill."

However, considering City Council's original vote was unanimous, it would likely be easy for the council to override a veto through a two-thirds vote.

And, with all of Council behind them, casino opponents now see themselves as having the upper hand.

When asked whether Council would negotiate with Street to avoid a veto, Brian Abernathy, Councilman Frank DiCicco's legislative aide, said, "There's nothing to negotiate. Either you give the citizens a voice on the issue, or you don't."

He added that a Street veto would be "a slap in the face of the citizens."

DiCicco, whose district includes the proposed SugarHouse and Foxwoods casino sites on the riverfront, has been the primary opponent of slots in City Council.

But the state Gaming Control Board isn't throwing in the towel just yet.

According to spokesman Doug Harbach, the organization believes it has a duty to fight for the two casino licenses it awarded for Philadelphia - even if it means taking the city to court.

Its argument is based on a legal interpretation that claims that state law - in this case, Act 71, which authorized casino licenses - trumps city law, and any charter amendment to the contrary would be unconstitutional.

That includes any changes to the city's zoning laws, Harbach said.

Harbach also noted that Diaz, while acknowledging that Street doesn't have the authority to stop a ballot question, still believes that any amendment would be struck down by state courts.

Diaz did not return repeated requests for comment.

Opponents, not surprisingly, have a different interpretation.

In a memo posted on Casino Free Philadelphia's Web site, the advocacy group points to an earlier state Supreme Court decision on Act 71.

According to Casino Free Philadelphia, that decision threw out the exact provision in the bill that would have prevented the proposed city charter amendment on the grounds that Act 71 wasn't specific enough.

If the referendum does pass in May, a long legal battle will likely ensue, but Casino Free Philadelphia spokesman Daniel Hunter said the organization is convinced it has a "very tight, legally-binding argument" behind it.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.