January 31, 2007

Dear Editor:

Re: “Rendell calls Council gutless over casinos”

Rendell is kowtowing to casino interests and ignoring the very neighborhoods he had a hand in rejuvenating. Rendell needs to understand that City Council is listening to its constituency. The people are not against jobs or development: they are fighting for the future of their neighborhoods.

City Council has the courage to listen to its constituency and stand up to a Governor who ignores the facts. Public officials listening to their constituency as Council is doing is not extortion, it’s their job, it’s why we elected them and we applaud them for it.

Make no mistake: most of us opposed to the locations of these facilities are not against gaming or job creation for the city. We simply don’t want to see our neighborhoods destroyed. If these are moved out of neighborhoods the opposition will largely disappear and Rendell and the casinos will get their chance to attempt to create jobs and tax relief.

The casino operators can start building right away by simply choosing sites outside of neighborhoods. The law allows it the best of my knowledge and City Council would likely support it.

If Rendell wants gaming in Philadelphia the solution is very simple: he can join Senator Fumo, City Council and much of the Philadelphia Delegation and move theses facilities to sites where they are not opposed. It is not enough that he asked the developers to move, he needs to take the initiative and make it happen. The neighborhoods don’t want them–how can we make that any more clear?

Make no mistake, the opposition to these casinos is significant and we will not let up. We have fought these locations for well over a year and we will continue to fight them until they are moved. If they are built where they are proposed we will work to shut them down.

Morgan Jones
Fishtown Resident

December 3, 2007

Dear Editor:

Re: “The ‘New Vince’ tastes suspiciously refreshing”, Daily News 10/3

John Baer is right to point out the sudden 180-degree turn that Vince Fumo has done on casinos, but is the ‘New Vince’ ready to really step and do something to sway the skeptical voters who know and are warming up to Anne Dicker?

To my untrained eye it looks like Fumo is nervous. The neighborhoods are still vocally against casinos, Fumo is facing what appears to be a strong indictment and Dicker, a strong advocate with a record of standing up for neighborhoods and opposing casinos, is on the hunt.

The fact is Fumo is the self identified author of the law that brought gambling to Pennsylvania. Fumo did nothing when this law was used to to strip Philadelphians of their right to vote on whether to keep casinos away from neighborhoods. Fumo did nothing when Fourteen of us traveled to Harrisburg and got arrested asking the Gaming Control board to open up their records last winter. Fumo was not there to support the Philly Ballot Box initiative this spring. When casino opponents held their own “citizen’s referendum” on a buffer zone between casinos and homes, Michael Nutter, Tom Knox, Chaka Fattah, Bob Brady, Mike O’Brien and most of our city’s political leaders supported the effort and voted in the referendum, but Fumo did nothing.

Many of us have given up more than a year of our lives to fight casino development in our neighborhoods. We want to believe Fumo is really in this to the end but he’s going to have to actually move these casinos before election day if he wants my vote and my neighbors’ votes. I want to trust and support him but the old Vince is too fresh on my mind to allow anything short of action to sway me.

We will fight casino development in our neighborhoods until they are moved. If they are built we will shut them down. Period. If Vince Fumo wants our support he is going to have to move the casinos before the election, it’s just too easy for him to be our ally until the election is over.

Morgan Jones
Fishtown Resident
FAST (Fishtown Against Sugarhouse Takeover)

November 20, 2007

Dear Editor,

Re: Guest essay: Slot machines benefit Pa. in many ways

Gaming in Pennsylvania is not a rosy picture as Ms. Colins has painted for your readers. Act 71, the Pennsylvania gaming law, has granted casinos licenses at two of the worst possible locations in Philadelphia. These developments threaten to destroy some of Philadelphia’s highest valued and most historic neighborhoods.

Neighborhood opposition to these locations has been fierce and nearly unanimous. Despite well over a year of consistent opposition the City, State and the casinos themselves continue to wage war on the neighborhoods by refusing to talk about re-siting these facilities. This is the first time casinos have been placed in densely populated thriving city neighborhoods and we don’t want to be the gaming industry’s experiment!

This will be a huge experiment at the expense of our neighborhoods. They can be just as effective at generating revenue at alternate, unopposed locations in the city. The sooner these locations are found the sooner they can be built and start generating revenue.

We have asked and we have begged for assistance. We are now heavily fortified and ready to fight this to the end. My neighbors an I ask Ms. Colins, the rest of the Gaming Control Board and the state as a whole to stand with us to save our neighborhoods and find other locations where these are not opposed.

We will not back down as long as casinos are planned for the central Delaware riverfront in Philadelphia or any location where they are opposed by neighbors. We have delayed them since the licenses were awarded on December 20, 2006, nearly a year ago Even if these are built we will fight them until they are shut down. Period. If they are moved out of neighborhoods that oppose them they will be built and open in peace.

While I can’t speak first hand for the situation across Pennsylvania I urge your readers to look more deeply into gaming in Pennsylvania. My and my neighbor’s experience has taught that the process is deeply flawed and has the potential to leave permanent, damaging scars on Pennsylvania and its people.

Morgan Jones
Fistown (Philadelphia) Resident
FAST (Fishtown Against Sugarhouse Takeover)
http://fishtownagainstsugarhouse.org

October 11, 2007

Dear Editor:

Re: “Official Negotiations for CBA Begin” in Spirit Community Newspapers 10/4/2007

Your representation of the the casino “negotiations” taking place at the Hyatt is unbalanced. These negotiations are led by the developer and attended only by self-described pro-casino groups. You have also failed to mention that there were called in direct opposition to Fishtown Neighbors Association’s (FNA’s) request for time to obtain proper legal counsel.

There is nothing “formal” about these negotiations—they are a public relations stunt by Sugarhouse to lead us to believe their development has community support.

These “negotiations” are a clear attempt by the developer to move the casino development time line along with no regard for the community groups who truly represent the neighborhoods. NKCDC does not represent the community, they are a corporation. Fishtown Action (FACT), though it contains members of the Fishtown community, is a pro-casino advocacy group that has received funding from, held welcoming parties for and openly supports the very developer they are “negotiating” with.

Your story sounds like it comes from the public relations arm of Sugarhouse which would have you and the rest of the city believe they are honest brokers. Casinos are a corporate interest with one motive: profit. Make no mistake: they did not call negotiations with the interest of the community in mind, they are looking to open quickly in proximity to neighborhoods to make a profit.

True negotiations should be led by the community groups themselves on a time line that allows them to really address the needs of the community and not simply rush into a Community Benefits Agreement so the developer can accelerate their development time line.

Morgan Jones
Fishtown Resident

August 28, 2007

Dear Editor:

Re: “Citing delays, casinos balk at fees” in Daily News 8/28/07

This article is a perfect illustration of why re-siting is in the casino operators’ best interest. Many of us are neither anti-casino nor anti-gaming. We are more than happy for the casinos to relocate to sites in the city that are outside of neighborhoods or in neighborhoods where they are wanted.

We are not looking to directly hurt the operators or inflict financial harm, we are protecting our homes and neighborhoods. This is a perfect opportunity for the casinos to ask for new sites. The casino operators can easily get their facilities open and effect the decision of city council: they can work with neighborhoods and the city to re-site to friendly locations. This is not a vendetta against casinos, it’s a vendetta against casino locations near our homes.

In retrospect it might have been a good idea for the gaming applicants to talk to the neighborhoods before they invested in these sites. If they had searched the city for friendly sites years ago their facilities would be built by now.

I and many of my colleagues will never back down as long as casinos are planned for the central Delaware riverfront or any location where they are opposed by neighbors. Even if these are built we will continue to oppose them until they are shut down. Period. If you move them out of neighborhoods that oppose them they will be built and open in peace.

Morgan Jones
Fishtown resident
FAST (Fishtown Against Sugarhouse Takeover)

August 27, 2007

Dear Editor:

Re: “Help for problem gambling” in 8/27/07 Philadelphia Inquirer

This may be the least responsible piece on the state of gaming I’ve seen yet. The former CEO of Harrah’s Entertainment is the chairman of the National Center for Responsible Gaming? Isn’t that like the former CEO of Jack Daniels heading Alcoholics Anonymous with a cocktail in one hand?

Phil’s article suggests that the solution to lack of government funding is private funding. The corporations that stand to benefit the most from gambling are researching the roots of problem gambling? Don’t you think they have some incentive to skew the results in a way that benefits their bottom line? Oh, well, their own research shows that the most serious form of gambling is confined to 1.14 and 1.60 percent. That’s a relief.

Phil then refers to “the unprecedented growth of research on gambling disorders has also made it possible to translate this knowledge into practical tools..” The only tool he offers to is “self-exclusion.” Since when do addicts have the self control to ask to be excluded from their drug?

I have no problem with legalized gaming. However, common sense dictates that research on gambling disorders should be done by an independent, outside party with untainted funds. The gaming industry should be regulated by government or independent entity, not the gaming industry itself.

This article is just another gambling industry insider assuring us that the industry is self regulating and there’s no need for outside scrutiny. It sounds like the fox watching the hen house to me.

Morgan Jones
Fishtown Resident
FAST (Fishtown Against Sugarhouse Takeover)

August 23, 2007

Dear Editor,

Re: “Casino hopes to bring neighbors to the table” in Philly Metro

My neighbors and I strongly resent the implication that the city negotiated on the neighborhoods’ behalf because the neighborhoods wouldn’t come to the table. This is a perfect example of the city working for the operator and not the people. The city and Ken Fee of Sugarhouse failed to mention that Fishtown Neighbors Association’s first priority in negotiation is resiting this intruder in our neighborhood.

The neighborhoods within the DRNA refuse to negotiate because this development has been forced on them. We have repeatedly asked for support from the city to help us re-site the casinos away from city neighborhoods. All we get in response is noise about sewer improvements and back room deals that undermine the efforts of the neighborhoods and the city’s own negotiations.

Romulo Diaz has never approached the people of Fishtown or, to my knowledge, any other group for input into this agreement. He has only accused us of not negotiating with the operator, and then gone out on his own and negotiated on our behalf. Who does he work for? What are his motives? Who benefits from Mr. Diaz’s efforts? He’s clearly not working for the good of Philadelphia or its neighborhoods.

The recently released agreement between the city and Sugarhouse show that the city wants casinos more than it wants thriving neighborhoods. Mayor Street couldn’t leave a worse legacy for himself — and a worse mess for the next mayor to clean up.

Morgan Jones
Fishtown Resident
FAST (Fishtown Against Sugarhouse Takeover)