|
from No Casino Gettysburg:
Friends, the PGCB gave their reasons for denying Crossroads on 2.1.07. Here are five news stories about it, and a good lte from Jean Siderio in the Gettysburg Times, all from 2.2.07 papers. If you are local, pick up a copy of this week's Gettysburgian in the Gettysburg College Student Union for the stinging two page editorial on the casino.
Reasons PGCB rejected Crossroads application (from the PGCB report)
See full report at http://www.pgcb.state.pa.us/adjuducations/Cat2_AL_OA.pdf
1. No “credible” evidence Crossroads could compete with Charlestown for the MD/DC gamblers.
2. Of all the proposals, Crossroads promised to spend the least on their project.
3. If MD legalizes slots, Crossroads would generate the least amount of money to the state.
4. Crossroads would be the last to open, delaying income to the state.
5. “Overwhelming” community opposition based on history and impact on a rural community.
Opposition cited in casino rejection
Friday, February 02, 2007
BY SHARON SMITH Of The Patriot-News In the end, consistent community opposition led the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board to nix plans for a casino near Gettysburg.
The decision -- made in December but officially discussed yesterday -- dashed the hopes of Adams County businessman David LeVan to build Crossroads Gaming Resort & Spa. His plans met opposition from local and national history buffs concerned about having a casino about a mile away from the battlefield. While seated at a conference table in the Gaming Control Board offices yesterday, board members explained that they based their decisions on what was best for Pennsylvania. A Gettysburg casino would not have fit in with that goal, they explained. "There was a big picture we had to fill in," said Mary Colins, a board member.
On paper, the Crossroads casino looked like it would have generated more money than some of the other proposed casinos. But that revenue could be severely diminished if Maryland legalizes gaming, which most board members thought was likely. That issue, coupled with the organized opposition, made Crossroads a losing proposition. "You don't have a great deal of local support, and potentially you could lose 40, 50, 60 percent of your potential market," said Sanford Rivers, a member of the board. "Then you ask yourself, 'Would this be a positive decision to place a casino in this particular location?'"
The opposition weighed heavily in the board's decision, Colins said. Opposition groups, such as No Casino Gettysburg, made their presence known at many of the board meetings leading up to the decision. "It was the concerted, sustained opposition that was organized in Gettysburg which was compelling," she said.
Susan Star Paddock, one of the main organizers behind No Casino Gettysburg, said that's the effect her group was seeking. "We think that we've made Adams County radioactive for this type of ill-conceived project," she said.
LeVan did not return phone calls yesterday. David LaTorre, a Crossroads spokesman, said a decision has not been made on whether to file an appeal. The time on that clock is ticking. Applicants who were denied licenses have 30 days from yesterday to appeal the board's decision to the state Supreme Court. Paddock thinks it's unlikely that Crossroads will appeal, but her group will be ready if it does.
The gaming board has awarded licenses for five free-standing casinos. Under state law, Philadelphia was to get two of the casinos, Pittsburgh could have one and two others could be located elsewhere in the state. The board decided to award SugarHouse Casino and Foxwoods Casino the two Philadelphia licenses. Majestic Star got the Pittsburgh license, and Mount Airy and Sands Bethworks the two at-large licenses. SHARON SMITH: 255-4152 or sharonsmith@patriot-news.com
http://www.ydr.com/newsfull/ci_5142153
| Why a slots bid lost |
| A report listed public opposition among the reasons a Gettysburg-area casino was denied. |
By RICHARD FELLINGER
Harrisburg bureau
York Daily Record/Sunday News |
| Article Launched:02/02/2007 06:14:33 AM EST |
| Feb 2, 2007 — State gaming regulators rejected a slots casino near Gettysburg late last year largely because of fierce public opposition and questions about how many gamblers it would attract.
In a 114-page opinion issued Thursday, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board explained for the first time why it did not award a slots license to the proposed Crossroads Gaming Resort & Spa at routes 30 and 15 in Adams County. The board instead gave licenses to the Mount Airy Resort and Casino in Monroe County and Sands Bethworks in Bethlehem. Board members described both as stronger markets for attracting gamblers because they should draw from population centers such as New York and New Jersey. Because slots were legalized in 2004 to provide property-tax relief, revenue potential was a key consideration for the gaming board.
While Crossroads promised to draw gamblers from the Washington, D.C., and Baltimore areas, the gaming board was not convinced they would see enough. Board members expressed concern about the possibility that Maryland will eventually legalize slots. "So in the process of trying to protect our property - if you will, the casinos - we felt that was not as strong a location," board member Sanford Rivers said of Gettysburg. With the Civil War battlefields nearby, Crossroads had vocal opposition from national preservation groups and a grassroots group named No Casino Gettysburg. Crossroads also had supporters - a coalition of union backers and a grassroots group named Pro Casino Adams County - but it wasn't enough to counter the critics. "Certainly, of all the applications, Gettysburg had the most community opposition," board member Jeffrey Coy said.
In their written opinion, board members note that the 2004 slots law states "the public interest of the citizens of this Commonwealth and the social effect of gaming shall be taken into consideration in any decision or order made." The board was not entirely critical of Crossroads. It indicated it was impressed with the design of the project and with lead investor David LeVan, a Gettysburg businessman with a track record of community involvement. Crossroads proposed a complex in a park-like setting with a four-star hotel, a 30,000-square- foot spa and several restaurants.
"If you took the project and put it somewhere else, it's really a nice project," board chairman Tad Decker said. While board members were appointed by Gov. Ed Rendell or a legislative leader, they insisted that no politician influenced their decision. Coy noted that all the board's licensing votes were unanimous.
Crossroads spokesman David LaTorre said the group would have no comment on the written opinion. While Crossroads can appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, LeVan said in a December radio interview that he doesn't plan to do that. Crossroads was one of five applicants for two stand-alone slots licenses outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Also rejected were the Poconos Manor Resort and Casino in Monroe County and Lehigh Valley Tropicana in Allentown.
Read the decision on the Gaming Control Board's Web site at http://www.pgcb.state.pa.us. Click on “Category 2 Orders & Adjudications.”
|
Outcry, MD Doomed Casino
Gettysburg Times 2.1.07
by Scot Pitzer, Times Staff writer
“ ... a 20 percent decline in revenues ... would place Crossroads at the bottom of the revenue generation models.” — Gaming Control Board report.
Significant public opposition and the impact of potential Maryland slots, while downplayed by Crossroads Gaming Resort and Spa officials, were factors deemed significant enough to warrant the denial of the Gettysburg area gaming license. Pennsylvania gaming legislators revealed their reasoning Thursday behind the denial of Crossroads — a $350 million Straban Township slots proposal — releasing a 120-page report detailing the licensing process. “Opposition was strongest in relation to the proximity of the casino to the historic battlefield areas, and the effect the casino would have on the traditionally rural nature of the community,” the state Gaming Control Board (GCB) report stated.
When contacted by phone Thursday, Crossroads spokesperson David La Torre said the group he represents, led by local businessman David LeVan, had no comment.
Susan Star Paddock, leader of No Casino Gettysburg, was not surprised by the reasons given. “The PGCB reasons today validated the two economic impact reports done for No Casino Gettysburg and the Civil War Preservation Trust, which detailed why Crossroads did not stand up to the competition in revenue projections,” Paddock said in a press release. “Based on the state’s reasoning, Adams County would have received far less benefit than promised had the casino been licensed, and this money would not have covered the actual costs to the county.”
On Dec. 20, the Pa. GCB awarded slots licenses to two of Crossroads’ four standalone slots (Category II) competitors: Sands Bethworks, in the Lehigh Valley region, and Mount Airy, in the Poconos. In the panel’s written opinion, the board stated that Crossroads’ projected revenue dipped from second, on the list of five Category II aspirants, to last if Maryland were to enact similar gaming. “Since the board has a strong interest in protecting its product by assuring that the chosen casinos stay in business, a 20 percent decline in revenues...would place Crossroads at the bottom of the revenue generation models, a position any applicant should desire to avoid in a competitive licensing situation as is present here,” the board’s report stated.
Revenue projections indicated that Crossroads, targeting the Baltimore-Washington, D.C. metro area, would generate $277.55 million annually. “Without Crossroads, a population of 4.9 million adults within that market will be untapped by Pennsylvania gaming, and will likely lose money to Charles Town (W.Va.),” testified Crossroads representive Peter Tyson in December.But with slots south of the Maryland border, that estimate, the board said, dips to the $216-$231 million range. The gaming panel’s Maryland related fears, coupled with doubts regarding Charles Town gaming, were major factors in the denial of the Gettysburg proposal. “Crossroads presented substantial testimony that it will rely in large part on the Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C. areas for its patronage, and that 60-65 percent of its revenues would originate from outside the Commonwealth,” the GCB report states. “The Gettysburg area is primarily a rural area without large population centers nearby to sustain the casino, thus the emphasis on the market to the South.” “In theory,” the report continued, this strategy is appealing.However, during the licensing hearings, (Crossroads) presented testimony that it was ‘virtually the same drive time away’ from the Baltimore-Washington, D.C., market as Charles Town slots in West Virginia; and that Charles Town had a casino win of $437- million in the fiscal year ending Jan. 30, 2006. While that number is significant, the board was not presented with any credible evidence to demonstrate how much of that Charles Town business could be expected to leave that facility, and travel north to Gettysburg.”
Local and national outcry also played a substantial role in the board’s rejection of Crossroads. The facility’s proposed location — at the intersection of Routes 15 and 30 in Straban, within a mileand- a-half of a portion of Gettysburg National Military Park — repulsed historians and preservationists. Last year, when the gaming panel conducted three Crossroads public input hearings, two of which were held at Gettysburg College, 123 individuals testified. The gaming board received written comments, 156 supporting and 280 opposing, prior to a June 2, 2005 deadline. One envelope contained an additional 270 comments touting Crossroads, as well as 5,606 signatures representing proponents.
Two opposition petitions totaling 1,434 signatures, the board stated in its report, were received, as well as a 60,305 signature petition, collected by No Casino Gettysburg. “During the public input hearings in April and May, 2006, community group representatives and individual members of the community testified overwhelmingly in opposition to the project,” the GCB report stated.
The board revealed that it chose to award Mount Airy and Sands Bethworks licenses for the following reasons:
• Sands Bethworks’ location in a “strong” Lehigh Valley market — with easy access to New York and New Jersey — and the developer’s proposed revitalization of the former Bethlehem Steel plant; and
• Mount Airy’s ability to generate Pennsylvania revenue in a timely manner. “The Mount Airy structure is presently under construction,” the board’s report stated. “The economic benefits will flow to Pennsylvania’s citizens sooner for the betterment of the Commonwealth.”
Category II applicants now have 30 days to file appeals in the state’s Supreme Court. LeVan said Dec. 21 that at that time he wasn’t considering an appeal.
Contact Scot Pitzer at 334-1131, ext. 247
Defends Casino Opponents, LTE Gettysburg Times 1/2/07
I am responding to Ruth Gritsch’s letter to the Editor of Jan. 30, in which she called opponents of the casino “the forces of moral righteousness” and “our righteous brethren.” The fact is that there were many reasons to oppose this casino, but the most compelling reason was always location, location, location; the utter inappropriateness of placing a 3-5,000 machine slots parlor in the area of the nation's premier Civil War battlefield.
The fact is, also, that the opponents of the casino were from many different backgrounds and world views. In moral and political views, opponents ran the spectrum from left to right to everything in between. One of the strengths of the opposition was the diversity of its proponents, who were united with one strong aversion to the location near Gettysburg of this enterprise. Casino opponents have had many onedimensional labels placed upon them, the latest of which seems to be Ms. Gritsch’s characterization. Painting many diverse individuals with a broad brush seems to me to be an attempt to diminish effectiveness and power. However, there is no possible way, and never was, to diminish the effectiveness of the casino opposition. The proof is in the pudding; there will be no casino here in this place of national honor. Jean Siderio , Gettysburg
| Casino killed by foes, potential draw |
By RICHARD FELLINGER
Evening Sun Harrisburg Bureau
Evening Sun |
| Article Launched:02/02/2007 10:07:54 AM EST |
|
|
State gaming regulators rejected a slots casino near Gettysburg last year largely because of fierce public opposition and questions about how many gamblers it would attract. In a 114-page opinion issued Thursday, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board explained for the first time why it did not award a slots license to the proposed Crossroads Gaming Resort and Spa at routes 30 and 15 in Straban Township. The board instead gave licenses to the Mount Airy Resort & Casino in Monroe County and Sands Bethworks in Bethlehem. Board members described both as stronger markets for attracting gamblers because they should draw from population centers such as New York and New Jersey.
Because slots were legalized in 2004 to provide property-tax relief, revenue potential was a key consideration for the gaming board. While Crossroads promised to draw gamblers from the Washington, D.C., and Baltimore areas, the gaming board was not convinced they would see enough. Board members expressed concern about the possibility that Maryland will eventually legalize slots. "So in the process of trying to protect our property – if you will, the casinos – we felt that was not as strong a location," board member Sanford Rivers said of Gettysburg.
With the Civil War battlefields nearby, a grassroots group called No Casino Gettysburg voiced their opposition and received national support from preservation groups. Susan Star Paddock, chairwoman of the group, said people in a democracy have to speak the truth. "We think it was a good conversation," she said, "but it's over. We think a casino was wrong for Adams County, and we're very happy with the outcome."
The Gaming Control Board cited the more than 60,000 signatures obtained by No Casino Gettysburg in its opinion. Paddock said more than 25,000 of the signatures were from Pennsylvania and about 6,700 were from Adams County. Crossroads also had supporters – a coalition of union backers and a grassroots group named Pro Casino Adams County – but it wasn't enough to counter the critics.
"Certainly, of all the applications, Gettysburg had the most community opposition," board member Jeffrey Coy said.
In their written opinion, board members note that the 2004 slots law states "the public interest of the citizens of this Commonwealth and the social effect of gaming shall be taken into consideration in any decision or order made."
The board was not entirely critical of Crossroads. They indicated they were impressed with the design of the project and with lead investor David LeVan, a Gettysburg businessman with a track record of community involvement. Crossroads proposed a complex in a park-like setting with 225 rooms in a four-star hotel, a 30,000-square-foot spa and several restaurants. "If you took the project and put it somewhere else, it's really a nice project," board chairman Tad Decker said.
While board members were appointed by Gov. Ed Rendell or a legislative leader, they insisted that no politician influenced their decision. Coy noted that all the board's licensing votes were unanimous, while Decker noted that a rejected casino plan tied to a new arena for the Pittsburgh Penguins had widespread political support. Crossroads spokesman David LaTorre said the group would have no comment on the written opinion. While Crossroads can appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, LeVan said in a December radio interview he doesn't plan on appealing.
Crossroads was one of five applicants for two standalone slots licenses outside Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Also rejected were the Poconos Manor Resort and Casino in Monroe County and Lehigh Valley Tropicana in Allentown.
ON THE WEB: Read the decision on the Gaming Control Board's Web site at www.pgcb.state.pa.us. Click on "Category 2 Orders & Adjudications."
|
Slots opponent No Casino to disband
By SEAN HILLIARD Evening Sun Reporter
Article Launched: 02/02/2007 10:07:53 AM EST
The grassroots group that influenced the Pennsylvania Gaming Board's decision to reject a proposed casino for Adams County is disbanding. No Casino Gettysburg Chairwoman Susan Star Paddock said the group's only remaining duty is to pay back the remainder of the money spent on the campaign, about $3,500 as of Thursday.
"We have no reason to exist after we pay the debt off," Paddock said.
For more than 20 months, the group spent about $70,000 to oppose the casino, and that figure doesn't include Civil War Preservation Trust contributions. But Paddock said the fight cost considerably less than the amount spent by Crossroads to pitch the project. The money that funded No Casino Gettysburg came primarily from local contributions, Paddock said. And she hopes donations will continue to come in until the debt is paid. Anyone who wishes to contribute can visit the group's Web site, www.nocasinogettysburg.com.
|