The board told partners of the long-delayed Philadelphia
That was the perfect response. It offers more hope the casino won't be built at its poor location on the Delaware River. It's also a welcome sign the gaming board can do what is right, and not what is politically expedient.
Foxwoods officials contend the Dec. 16 decision to revoke their license was unfair, and they're appealing in Commonwealth Court.
Yet, the gambling regulators' formal opinion on the license revocation notes that they cut Foxwoods plenty of slack - by repeatedly extending deadlines to get the project moving. If anything, the gaming board appeared to bend over backward to help Foxwoods get up and running. That only strengthens the board's decision to pull the license finally.
The only official dissent on pulling Foxwoods' ticket comes from Commissioner James B. Ginty, who's concerned that state lawmakers might opt to put the license up for bid statewide.
That's just what should happen, though, since it's clear the city doesn't need a second casino. In addition to the long-term economic and social costs of gambling, the city isn't suitable for one casino, let alone two.
In fact, the disappointing slots revenues at SugarHouse, the lone city casino, has prompted some gambling experts to conclude the market, which includes several casinos in the region, is saturated.
Against that backdrop, the Foxwood developers are fighting a losing battle to put a casino at a traffic-clogged riverfront location Mayor Nutter once called "wrong for Philadelphia."
Well, it's still wrong. So it's good to see the gaming board stand firm in its decision that Foxwoods was a losing hand.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|