3/24/08 No Casino Gettysburg received National Parks Conservation Association Award; Passes $ on to Land Coservancy of Adams County The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) awarded No Casino Gettysburg with its 2007 Marjory Stoneman Douglas award for the organization's contributions in the fight to save Gettysburg National Military Park from the ill effects of a casino proposed to be built nearby. The award was presented at the Farnsworth House in Gettysburg, one of 178 Businesses Against the Casino. The award included $2,500 given to Susan Star Paddock. Paddock and No Casino leaders decided to give the $2,500 to the Land Conservancy of Adams County because it is a grass roots group doing the most to preserve the environment of the national park and our rural character.
Paddock Given Annual Preservationist, Peacemaker Awards Susan Star Paddock of Gettysburg received two awards recently for her work as chairperson of the grass roots group, No Casino Gettysburg. On April 21, during their national convention in Portsmouth, Va., the Civil War Preservation Trust gave Paddock their “Carrington Williams Battlefield Preservationist of the Year, 2007” award “for her outstanding commitment to Civil War battlefield preservation.” On April 23, , The Interfaith Center for Peace and Justice gave Paddock their “Peacemaker of the Year, 2007” award for the peaceful way in which she conducted the campaign against a proposed 5000 slot casino in Straban Township. On December 20, the Pa Gaming Control Board denied a license to the proposed Crossroads Gaming Resort and Spa due to “overwhelming, sustained public opposition.” No Casino Gettysburg has dissolved.Paddock will also be making a presentation about the successful public campaign at the annual Preservation Pa conference on May 17. Paddock consults with non-profits and businesses to help increase their effectiveness through coaching and strategic planning. Additional information: Re: Civil War Preservation Trust contact Mary Goundrey, 202-367-1871 x 231 Interfaith Center for Peace and Justice, contact Denise Weldon-Siviy, president weldonsiviy@yahoo.com, 717-334-6880.
2.1.07 PA Gaming Board Tells Why they Rejected Gettysburg Casino, Cites low income to state, "overwhelming" opposition.
Today the PGCB submitted its reasons for the denial of a license to Crossroads. In addition to the superiority of the BethSands and Mt. Airy proposals, the PGCB cited two main reasons in a press conference today:
1.the possibility of MD slots and 2. the "consistent, well organized opposition" The PGCB report on their website cites five main reasons:(see full quotes below)
Reasons PGCB rejected Crossroads application 1. No "credible" evidence Crossroads could compete with Charlestown for the MD/DC gamblers. 2. Crossroads promised the smallest economic commitment of all the proposals. 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.
According to Susan Star Paddock, chair of the opposition group to a casino one mile from the Gettysburg National Military Park, these points had also been made in testimony provided to the Board by No Casino Gettysburg.
"The PGCB reasons today validate 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. 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."
"No Casino Gettysburg is dissolving after it achieved its purpose in convincing the Pa Gaming Control Board to deny a license to Crossroads Gaming Resort and Spa, and after its debts have been paid.
According to Susan Star Paddock, "We had a single goal and that goal has been achieved."
No Bitterness
Paddock posted a message on the website in Dec. stating that the group holds no animosity toward those who proposed or supported the casino, adding, "Everyone has a bad idea at least once in their life." Paddock added that the proposal gave the community 20 months of an important conversation about values and economic development. "When this began, there was a lot more apathy in Adams County, and an attitude that begrudgingly accepted the ‘done deal’.
Because of this controversy, more of us understand that in a democracy, we have the obligation to speak the truth to powerful people. Today there is far more local activism in the townships and beyond, and No Casino volunteers are involved in many of these groups. We hope the volunteers on both sides will stay involved to keep government, and our civic organizations, accountable. We also hope everyone will explore membership in the Land Conservancy of Adams County, and other historic and preservation groups."
History:
The opposition to the casino idea began the day Crossroads announced its intentions April 2005, nearly 21 months ago. The group held public meetings, seminars, and a candlelight vigil. They brought Civil War icons Lincoln, Lee, and Grant to speak at a press conference at the capital and attended every PGCB meeting wearing their signature ‘No Casino Gettysburg’ t-shirts. They met with various local officials where the casino proposal was to be discussed, producing voluminous research on economic impact. They spent months of Saturdays on the street corners in Gettysburg with No Casino merchandise and petitions. Their volunteers lobbied Gov. Rendell and the legislature, helping to influence the Pa House to unanimously pass a bill stating that Adams County should be off-limits for casinos. The amendment was never considered in the Senate.
By paying for legal counsel during Straban Township zoning hearing board deliberations, they helped secure recognition of the concerns of Straban residents in the only government proceedings which officially allowed local residents a voice in the license approval process.
One of their most effective tools was a website and an open forum message board where those on both sides could discuss the varied aspects of the casino proposal. The website will stay up until March but the message board, with 24,245 messages, was removed Dec 23.
Thousands of hours and dollars were spent by local volunteers to defeat the proposal.
Paddock thanked supporters, both individuals and groups, who helped the cause, and mentioned the dedicated volunteers who collected 65,270 petition signatures (the Board cites over 60,000), the 178 Businesses Against the Casino in Adams County, and the 28 community groups and dozens of individuals who testified at three public hearings, where 86% of the testimony opposed the project.
In the last months of the struggle, Paddock said "the cavalry arrived" via the Stop the Gettysburg Slots Coalition, www.stopthegettysburgslots.org , consisting of historic preservation groups, including the Civil War Preservation Trust, the National Parks Conservation Association, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Preservation Pa. Paddock also thanked the local preservation group, Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg, the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, and the faculty, students and parents groups of Gettysburg College who helped their effort.
The Pa Gaming Control Board denied the license unanimously on 12/20/06. Crossroads CEO David LeVan has stated that he will not appeal the Gaming Board decision. (www.gettysburgtimes.com 12/22/06 "LeVan sees no appeal of slots denial")
No Casino Gettysburg had filed a challenge in support of Straban Township residents to the zoning approval given to Crossroads, a challenge that would have been heard in the State Supreme Court. Since Crossroads did not get a license, the zoning issue no longer matters, and the group withdrew the challenge on 12/27/06.
Debt: "Not including the Civil War Preservation Trust contributions, our group spent about $70,000 on this campaign, almost all of it from hundreds of local contributors. We still owe about $3,600." Paddock added, "Those who appreciate what we have done for Gettysburg and the nation are contributing to defray the costs." Although the phone and message board have been disconnected, the website is still up and the group continues as a legal entity until the debts are paid. The group’s archives will be placed in the Adams County Historical Society.
Contributions can be made online at the group’s website, www.nocasinogettysburg.com or by check made out to No Casino Gettysburg and mailed to PO BOX 3173, Gettysburg, PA 17325. Phone 717-334-3303 for more info.
Reasons PGCB (quotes in italics) rejected Crossroads see full report at
http://www.pgcb.state.pa.us/adjuducations/Cat2_AL_OA.pdf
1. No "credible" evidence Crossroads could compete with Charlestown, in W.Va. The Board could therefore have been skeptical of Crossroads revenue projections of its Baltimore/DC market share. 2. At only $350 million, Crossroads promised smallest economic commitment.compared "to Tropicana at $352 million, Mount Airy at $502 million, Sands Bethworks at $600 million and finally Pocono Manor at $705 million. "However, in the comparative setting to which these licenses are subject, the Board finds that the economic benefit of Crossroads and Tropicana, given the smaller economic commitments, likely will not be as significant as the benefits which will occur by virtue of the larger commitments and the spin-off business associated therewith of the Mount Airy, Sands Bethworks and Pocono Manor projects.9 This again is a factor which the Board weighs in favor of those applicants. 3. If MD legalizes slots, Crossroads would generate the least amount of money to the state."Further, the Board received testimony concerning the possibility of slot machines being introduced in Maryland and the impact that would have on the Gettysburg property. Gettysburg proponents testified that that they do not believe gaming legislation will be passed in Maryland in the "near future" but that even if it did, "we estimate that the revenue impact on Crossroads will be between 15 and 20 percent leaving Crossroads a substantial cushion above its break-even revenue level." See Hearing transcript at p. 62. While the Board certainly is comforted by the testimony that Crossroads would have a cushion above its break-even revenue level, since the Board has a strong interest in "protecting its product" by assuring that the chosen casinos stay in business, a twenty percent decline in revenues would place the revenue generation estimates in the $216 million to $231 million range depending on whether the Task Force or Crossroads revenue estimates are utilized.This scenario 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. 4. Crossroads would have opened last of all the proposed stand alone casinos, delaying tax benefit."the applicants predicted they could open in this order: Mount Airy, 2,500 machines in October 2007; Tropicana, 3,000 machines in December 2007; Pocono Manor, 1,500 machines in a temporary facility by December 31, 2007 and 3,000 machines by January 2009; Sands Bethworks, 3,000 machines in July 2008; and Crossroads, 3,000 machines in January 2009. Assuming a worst case scenario that the market in these locales could only support 3,000 machines, the time frame which Crossroads projects the receipt of any tax benefit to the citizens of Pennsylvania is too far off in the opinion of the Board when compared to the other applicants." 5. The public hearings found overwhelming community opposition to the proposal, based on history and impact on a rural community, not primarily moral opposition to gambling.
"We note particularly the opposition to the Crossroads proposal in 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. Opposition was strongest in relation to the proximity of the casino to the historic Gettysburg battlefield areas and the effect the casino would have on the traditionally rural nature of the community. Section 1102(10) of the Act instructs that "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." While the Board duly noted and considered the degree and proportion of public opposition, the Board’s decision was not based solely on this factor."
New! 12/14/06 ALERT: Final PETITION COUNT 65,268
What looked like a disaster for us on 12/13 at the Crossroads PGCB hearing has actually turned out to be in our favor. When Ann L. Neeb, PGCB Director made her report to the board Neeb had reported that there were 1,434 petition signatures in the written evidentiary record. Everyone wondered what happened to the 62,634 signatures we had been reporting. People who had collected the signatures were worried. 12/14 Crossroads jumped on the error and sent out a press release that No Casino had only 1,434 signatures, compared to Crossroads 5,606 signatures. (I haven't seen the release--just heard about it from several reporters) Then Doug Harbach Deputy Director of Communications Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, submitted a statement: "Anne Neeb’s comments referred only to the written submissions received during the public comment period. The voluminous petitions submitted by No Casino Gettysburg were part of the public hearing process and were entered into the evidentiary record. Therefore, all of those 62,634 petition signatures are also in evidence for the Board." Douglas P. Harbach Deputy Director of Communications Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board
Then WE realized that our count never included the signatures in the written record. Doug says the 62,634 is in addition to the 1,435. So we had actually 64,068. But it gets better than that. As we were figuring it all out, I called the CWPT to verify their numbers, and found out that Tuesday they mailed a box of another 1,200 names to the Board. CWPT says they are still coming in but the person counting them, Mary Goundrey, decided to stop at 1,200 and that's it. The Board might have just received those today. So the final count of ours and CWPT is 65,268. This does not include what National Trust for Historic Preservation has submitted from THEIR online petition--I don't know their numbers.
Our final number: 65,268
Very staisfying.
Crossroads Opponents Demand to Know More about Investors 12/4/06 No Casino Gettysburg has sent a right to know request to The Pa Gaming Control Board, asking for more information about Crossroads substitute investor, Silver Point. 12/4/06 Wall Street Journal, Section C contains an article by Randall Smith entitled: "Why Wall Street is Placing Its Chips on Casino Investing." As the article describes, Morgan Stanley is investing 2.5 billion dollars in casinos here, there and everywhere but Gettysburg. After Morgan Stanley dropped out, perhaps due to opposition, secretive Silver Point moved in. We need to know who these 75% owners are. To:Tad Decker, Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, Date:December 3, 2006Re: Right to Know request: Who is Silver Point?
No Casino Gettysburg requests under the Right to Know law, a copy of all governance documents for Silver Point Partners LLC; SP Capital Fund LP; SP Capital General Partner, LLC; SP Crossroads Investors LLC; Crossroads HoldCo, LLC; Crossroads NewCo, LLC; and all related funds (Silver Point) and a complete list of their limited and general partners be made public.We request compliance with adequate time for examination before Crossroads’ application is publicly discussed on December 13, 2006.
Silver Point is an unregulated hedge fund over which the limited and general partners may exercise significant individual control.These rights may extend to the right to participate in fund advisory committees, right of first refusal to participate in new funds created by Silver Point, limited partner rights to individually negotiate fees and carry, and the right to forego or not participate in individual investments made by Silver Point such as the proposed investment in Crossroads.Such control would make them active participants in Crossroads.
In addition, as an unregulated hedge fund, Silver Point’s investors have an opportunity to put literally billions of dollars to work without significant oversight.Some of Silver Point’s investors may or may not include high net worth individuals with criminal records or links to organized crime.Without seeing Silver Point’s governance provisions, there is simply no way to know if they attempt to screen out such investors.Even if Silver Point discourages such investors, there is no way to know if such provisions are enforced unless the Limited Partner (LP) and General Partner (GP) list is made available to the public and all are given an opportunity to examine it.
While the PGCB is obligated to perform necessary background checks and may conclude that these investors are all permissible, that does not satisfy its obligation for transparency as expressed in its January 9 and August 21, 2006 press releases.Furthermore by making transparent the names of the investors, the PGCB is able to enhance its ability to perform a complete investigation by obtaining pertinent knowledge from those who may come forward once they understand Silver Point’s LP and GP list.Such information is critical prior to any deliberation on licenses. Failure to release the information may result in an incomplete and/or fraudulent evaluation of the Crossroads application by the PGCB.Under Right to Know, such information pertaining to other applicants has been made available, and we would hope that litigation would not be necessary to promptly obtain the ownership information pertaining to Crossroads’ major investor, Silver Point.Please release this information immediately.If the investors refuse to release this information on claims of confidentiality, then they can withdraw their offer to invest in this State controlled enterprise, or the PGCB can deny Crossroads’ license application. Thank You, Susan Star Paddock, Chair
No Casino Gettysburg
cc:Ed Mule’ and Bob O’Shea, Silver Point Capital, Two Greenwich Plaza, Greenwich, CT 06830, Fax:203 542 4110
11/30/06 PA allows free liquor in casinos, Comments by No Casino Gettysburg Pa will now have free, unlimited alcohol served from 7AM to 2AM in its 12 planned 5000 slots casinos.* According to Susan Star Paddock, Chair of No Casino Gettysburg, this is an example of how casino promoters fail to consider the unintended consequences of their products. “Free booze will increase the money coming from casinos to investors and the State, but it will reduce the money coming to local businesses in casino towns.” . In Gettysburg, the 177 Businesses Against the Casino think of Crossroads as a giant vacuum , sucking a minimum of $63 million in current retail sales out of Adams County in the first year.** Unable to compete with cheap buffets and 19 hours a day of free booze, Gettysburg will surely lose many of the unique bars, restaurants, and small businesses that have made it America’s most beloved historic small town.
*2 casinos in Philadelphia, 1 in Pittsburgh, two “stand alone” casinos in other parts of the state, and 7 at existing racetracks. The law also allows two 500 slot existing resorts but contenders for these have dropped out. Crossroads is one of five competitors for the 2 “stand alone” licenses. Their hearing before the PGCB will be Dec 13, and the PGCB will vote on their application Dec 20, 2006.
** Michael Siegel, The Impact of a Large Casino on the Gettysburg Area and Adams County, PA: A Realistic Assessment, downloadable at www.nocasinogettysburg.com “Position Papers”
11/15/06
Silent Auction Fundraiser Friday for No Casino Gettysburg; Grass Roots Fight Expensive “We’ve been fighting the money and muscle of this one Gettysburg casino for 19 months, and it’s expensive!” said Susan Star Paddock, Chair of No Casino Gettysburg, which is opposing the 5000 slots Crossroads Gaming Resort and Spa proposed for Straban Township. Paddock explained that the costs of this fight have been massive. The all volunteer group pays for a website, telephone, reproduction of materials, printing and design of brochures, legal fees, gas and parking fees for lobbying/ attendance at every PGCB meeting, t-shirts, signs, buttons, bumper stickers etc.
The group is holding their first major fundraiser, a Silent Auction, this Friday, November 17th from 4-8 pm at the Adams County Winery, 25 Chambersburg Street, Gettysburg.
The 98 donated items include a rare, framed, out of print Troiani; autographed copies of books by Gabor Boritt, James McPherson and others; and framed First Day Eisenhower Stamps with original autographs by David and Julie Eisenhower. The full list is available at http://www.nocasinogettysburg.com/. Music and comedy will entertain bidders, who can munch on free hors d’oeuvres and enjoy a cash wine bar.
Ms. Paddock concluded, “Our goal is to raise $30,000 by the end of the year so we can continue this fight for as long as it takes. We anticipate paying for an appeal of the Straban Zoning Board decision, and if necessary, appealingif the PGCB awards the Gettysburg license. We’ve been blessed to have both free and discounted legal fees.”
P.S.: Since the plan was announced, we’ve been continuously active. We’ll be delivering our updated list of 177 Businesses Against the Casino, our final sets of petitions, and other documents to the PGCB tomorrow.The 62,634 signatures include over 20,563 Pennsylvanians and 6,720 Adams County residents. We definitely feel an obligation to keep fighting for these petition signers who are counting on us to preserve Gettysburg.
PENNSYLVANIA VOTERS REMAIN FIRMLY OPPOSED TO SLOTS PARLOR NEAR GETTYSBURG BATTLEFIELD (release from CWPT)Despite a costly marketing campaign by casino proponents, a new statewide poll confirms that Pennsylvania voters remain opposed to a Gettysburg slots parlor (Gettysburg, Pa., 11/17/2006) – A public opinion poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research reveals that Pennsylvania voters remain overwhelmingly opposed to plans for a 5,000-slot casino complex near the historic Gettysburg National Military Park.According to the poll, nearly two-thirds of Pennsylvania voters oppose a casino at Gettysburg.In addition, a majority of voters in the state indicated that they would consider such a casino an embarrassment to the Commonwealth. The independent poll was commissioned by three national conservation groups, the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT), the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), and the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP).Mason-Dixon had previously conducted a statewide poll of voter attitudes toward the controversial Gettysburg casino proposal in October 2005. “This latest statewide poll confirms what we already knew.Pennsylvanians hate the idea of a slots parlor at Gettysburg,” stated CWPT President James Lighthizer.“Despite an extravagant marketing campaign by Gettysburg casino proponents, Pennsylvanians remain firmly opposed to a casino so close to America’s most historic battlefield.” The numbers reinforce Lighthizer’s remarks.The October 2005 Mason-Dixon survey found that 65 percent of Pennsylvania voters oppose a Gettysburg casino.The more recent poll found that 64 percent of Pennsylvania voters still oppose the casino, just one percentage point lower than the 2005 analysis. NPCA spokesperson Cinda Waldbuesser noted that opposition to the Gettysburg slots parlor is even more pronounced in the ten counties in central Pennsylvania closest to Gettysburg.According to the latest survey, 73 percent of central Pennsylvanians oppose a Gettysburg casino.“Those who live closest to Gettysburg understand better than most that a casino doesn’t belong anywhere near family-friendly Gettysburg.That’s why three-out-of-four mid-state residents reject a casino at Gettysburg,” said Waldbuesser.In the October 2005 survey, 78 percent of central Pennsylvania voters indicated opposition to the Gettysburg casino. In his travels throughout the KeystoneState, NTHP spokesperson Adrian Fine has found many Pennsylvanians to be chagrined at the idea of a slots parlor at Gettysburg.“Many Pennsylvanians recognize that a casino so close to a place of quiet contemplation and remembrance will be a blemish on the reputation of the Commonwealth,” said Fine. The survey results confirm Fine’s observations.53 percent of Pennsylvania voters indicated they would consider a casino near Gettysburg to be an embarrassment to the Commonwealth.In the mid-state, the numbers were more pronounced:63 percent responded that the casino would be an embarrassment to Pennsylvania.Only 30 percent of central Pennsylvania voters thought a Gettysburg slots parlor would not embarrass the state. Mason-Dixon Polling and Research is well known as one of the most credible and accurate independent polling firms in the nation.Mason-Dixon conducted the poll from October 18-21, 2006.A total of 625 registered voters were interviewed statewide by telephone.For verification or questions concerning methodology, contact Brad Coker at (904) 261-2444.The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.
###
About the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) With 70,000 members, CWPT is the largest nonprofit battlefield preservation organization in the United States.Its mission is to preserve our nation’s remaining Civil War battlefields.Since 1987, the organization has saved more than 23,000 acres of hallowed ground, including 697 acres at Gettysburg.CWPT’s website is located at www.civilwar.org. About the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) Since 1919, the nonpartisan NPCA has been the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing our National Park System.NPCA, its members, and partners work together to protect the park system and preserve our nation’s natural, historical, and cultural heritage for generations to come.NPCA is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization with more than 300,000 members, including more than 13,000 members in Pennsylvania.NPCA’s website is located at www.npca.org. About the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) NTHP is a private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to protecting the irreplaceable. Recipient of the National Humanities Medal, the Trust was founded in 1949 and provides leadership, education, advocacy, and resources to save America’s diverse historic places and revitalize communities.Its Washington, DC headquarters staff, six regional offices and 26 historic sites work with the Trust’s 270,000 members and thousands of local community groups in all 50 states.NTHP’s website is located at www.nationaltrust.org For more information, contact:Jim Campi (CWPT), 202-367-1861; Cinda Waldbuesser (NPCA), 215-327-2529; Adrian Scott Fine (NTHP), 215-848-8033 For the results of the statewide poll, visit:http://www.stopthegettysburgslots.org/polling.html)
--------------------------------------------------------- Jim Campi, Policy and Communications Director Civil War Preservation Trust 1331 H Street NW Suite 1001 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 367-1861 http://www.civilwar.org
11/6/06 Crossroads Ownership Changes AGAIN, Morgan Stanley Drops Out
Crossroads announced 11/6/ 06 that it had new ownership as of Oct 13, 2006.
Morgan Stanley dropped their 75% ownership and are replaced by Goldman Sachs and a subsidiary. Silver Point Capital, L.P. has committed to provide equity capital and Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., an affiliate of Goldman, Sachs & Co., has committed to provide debt financing. Silver Point Capital specializes in hedge funds, high risk loans to the financially distressed.
Here are the changes in ownership.
Crossroads Gaming Resorts and Spa, L.P.
– Category 2 Applicant
1. Crossroads Gaming GP, L.L.C. – General Partner, changed from MS Gaming 1% of Crossroads GP, Inc
2. Crossroads NewCo, L.L.C. – Limited Partner, 75% ownership (Silver Point Capital, L.P, .) changed from 74% MS PA Gaming Holdings, Inc (a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley.)
14. Thomas Willer - Limited Partner, .557% ownership, reduced from .80
15. Jennifer LeVan - Limited Partner, 1.113% ownership, reduced from 1.61%
Susan Star Paddock, chair of No Casino Gettysburg, a grass roots group opposed to the proposal, said the changes are significant. "Why did Morgan Stanley drop out at this late date? Either Morgan Stanley let Goldman Sachs steal a deal they no longer wanted, or Goldman Sachs picked up damaged goods."
(Typically 'damaged goods' means that the company has to pay more for their financing.)
PA Offers Incentive for Adams County to Accept Gettysburg Casino despite opposition: Local Share 10 times greater than Pittsburgh;
The Reform of Act 71, the Gaming Bill, passed the Senate 10/27/06 with the greatest local share for a casino going to Adams County. Under the new legislation, Adams County would get a windfall, up to ten times more of the gambling revenue Local Share Assessment on a per capita basis than Pittsburgh or any other community would receive for hosting a casino. When Rendell signs SB 862, Pittsburgh’s per capita Local Share Assessment will be just $12.79, Philadelphia’s will be $16.22, Lehigh Valley $26.29, Monroe County in the Poconos gets $50.34, while Adams County Commissioners would administer funds totaling almost $163 per resident if a casino were licensed here.
Act 71 intended Local Share Assessments to help offset the costs of hosting a casino, and to help disadvantaged areas by funding “economic development projects, job training, community improvement projects, and other projects in the public interest.” The revised bill rewards one of the fastest growing and lowest unemployment counties in the state, while eliminating the provision that the money be shared with the 3 surrounding Counties.
According to No Casino Gettysburg chairman, Susan Star Paddock, the disproportionate Local Share Assessment, “will definitely offset some of the costs of a casino to the County, bringing the cost-benefit ratio of a Gettysburg casino down from 8:1 to almost 4:1. Given the overwhelmingly negative local and national feedback to the PGCB about this proposal, it appears as if Adams is being paid to want this casino.”
“Despite our gratitude for this windfall, our opposition to the proposal remains firm. A casino one mile from hallowed ground, in the place where over 50,000 American casualties helped insure that our nation would be a union free of slavery, is stunningly inappropriate. Our tourists say it keep them away, and our 173 Businesses Against the Casino fear it will harm the existing heritage tourism industry, destroy local businesses and add to social costs from local gambling addiction. Even this enhanced Local Share Assessment will not offset the loss from changing the identity of Gettysburg from a national treasure to just another casino town.”
Adams and York County Representative Steve Nickol, recognizes the immense harm that a casino would create in Adams, sacrificed his York constituents share of the money, and led the effort to focus the Local Share Assessment in Adams. According to the Gettysburg Times, (“Issues aired at candidates’ forum”, by John Messeder, October 26, 2006) in a candidates forum Thursday night, “Nickol maintained his opposition to standalone casinos, but said he would continue his efforts “to see that we at least get our fair share of the money.”
Prior to the change in the Local Share Assessment the costs of a casino outweighed the benefits for Adams County residents by about eight to one, but even with the additional Local Share Assessment for Adams the costs still outweigh the benefits by over three to one. The Local Share Assessment also does not affect the PGCB, which is more concerned about how much money comes into the State from a given casino. Testimony before the PGCB suggested a Poconos casino would earn 10 times that of a Gettysburg Casino.
According to Paddock, the opposition to the casino remains strong and the all volunteer grassroots group plans a legal appeal should the PGCB license Crossroads Dec 20.
Local Share Assessment Table
The table above shows how the Local Share Assessments vary between locations.
BACKGROUND and Details: This was not an easy issue to follow as the reform legislation has moved through the state legislature. SB 862 Printers Number 2186 erroneously put the provision for more gambling revenue for Adams under a Category One Racetrack. This mistake was not captured before it was passed by the House. Indeed, the mistake was pointed out by No Casino volunteer Keith Miller.
The latest attempt in SB 862 Printers Number 2218 may also have overlooked this largesse as it does not directly address Adams. By amending §1403 (b) (iii) (F) to address only class five counties like Monroe and deleting mention of class 6-8 counties like Adams, it puts all these smaller counties under §1403 (b) (iii) (G) of the original legislation. (G) provides that any county not specifically enumerated in clauses (A) through (F), would receive the full Local Share Assessment without having to share it with contiguous counties. An interesting consequence of this would be, if a county like Pike were awarded a class 2 license, it would obtain almost $300 per capita of Local Share Assessment.
A comparison of the potential Local Share Assessments for the proposed Category 2 license locations. So as not to argue revenue projections, the table above assumes that each casino would produce $300 million in gambling revenue. Philadelphia receives a 4% Local Share Assessment, while all other Counties will receive either directly or through the host municipality 2% plus the maximum of $10 million or 2%. No distinction is drawn between the host municipality and the host county. Host townships in Adams and Monroe would turn over about 90% of the allotted $10 million allocated to them to the county governments for reallocation because of the small size of their current expenditures. That means Straban Township still gets only $455,000, but the other $9.5 million appears to go to Adams County for administration by the County Commissioners. With respect to the proposed casino sites in Bethlehem and Allentown, there is a complicated revenue share arrangement which would share the Local Share Assessment 60/40 between the host and non host location. Since it is unknown which site might get a casino, the table shows, as an approximation, an equal per capita number for each site.
The impact of the proposed SB 862 Printers Number 2186 language, is that Adams County will get a windfall of $163 per person, compared to $13 for Pittsburg $16 for Philadelphia, about $26 for the Lehigh Valley, and $50 for Monroe, while Pike, Lackawanna, Carbon and Luzerne would see their potential Local Share Assessment reduced by about 40%, down to just $12.53, and Franklin, York, and Cumberland would completely lose their share of the Local Share Assessment.
Although the disproportionate Local Share Assessment may appear helpful, it does not mean that Adams would be better off. First, it is less than 3% of the total county and municipal budgets within Adams. Second, going forward, Harrisburg will probably take into consideration the Local Share Assessment when allocating any other program funds to Adams. Because Adams gets this windfall, it will probably lose other forms of state money. Finally, what Harrisburg gives – Harrisburg can take away. This has been a pattern in other states with casinos when they decide Local Share Assessments favor one area over another. The Local Share Assessment will remain beyond our control, and it is unclear whether it would benefit the County long term.
Cost Benefits Calculations (see Keith Miller’ Cost Benefit Analysis of Casino Gambling” downloadable on ‘bad idea’ page of
Costs
Diverted and Abused Funds.................$38.6............................$38.6
Social Costs......................................$22.4............................$22.4
Lost Heritage Tourism.......................$11.9.............................$11.9
Total.................................................$72.9.............................$72.9
Benefits
Gas saved by local casino..................$4.7...............................$4.7
Marginal wages if residents take jobs. $1.4................................$1.4
Local Share Assessment...................$3.0...............................$13.0
The Local Share Assessment was calculated at $10 million + 2% of $150 million in Gambling Income for a total of $13.0. If Gambling Income was $300 million the Total benefit would be 10.1 without the change and 22.1 with the change.
The Cost to Benefits ratio is thus, without the change 72.9/9.1 or 8 to 1, and with the change 72.9/19.1 or 3.8 to one.
