Is as follows:
13,319 "successful" votes were cast -- meaning, they were identified as belonging to a registered voter in Philadelphia.
And of those, 12,592 voted for a 1,500-foot buffer between slots parlors and homes and neighborhoods. 727 opposed the buffer.
Most of the votes - 9,446 - were at the bright-red ballot boxes in town.
Comments (10)
12,592 out of 1,400,000
Overwhelming support?
More people live in Mayfair than voted against casinos for the entire city.
Posted by Zur | May 21, 2007 7:50 PM
I am against these locations for the casinos, and against the process which brought us casinos.
But this "poll" was meaningless becasue the people polled were was self selecting.
Posted by Anonymous | May 21, 2007 9:14 PM
Yes, the "poll" is really just a normal petition--not a ballot. My only beef with the CaniNO people is their timing. Where were they during the casino location selection process? They had plenty of time to object and file legal challenges. Now, only after the fact, they suddenly claim the process was undemocratic.
Posted by Anonymous | May 21, 2007 9:29 PM
For your information, there has been opposition to the casinos for over two years. In fact, a legal challenge was made to the original gaming act in March of 2005. The Supreme Court decision in June 2005 got the ball rolling, so to say, since they ignored the PA constitution and "ruled" in favor of the state. Since then the courts have ignored the law and ruled against the casino opposition. Removing the referendum without explaination is the height of arrogance and corruption. No one seems to care, especially since there is a $100 annual tax break in it for everyone. And dont' forget that the payraise bill occurred only one month after the June 05 ruling by the Supreme Court. Obviously, the courts got a raise for a job well done.
The communities and anti casino groups have been fighting the process for well over a year and to say that only now are they making a stink is unfair. It has only been 5 months (December 20, 2006) since the decision to put them both on the river front was made. Only then has the papers chosen to closely cover the issue. And look at how much has been accomplished since then, with each time the courts ruling against the people. (Don't forget the 27,000 signatures that were thrown out without the casinos having the legal number of valid petitioners to make the challenge and without the judge giving the referendum folks an opportunity to defend a single signature.) What is obvious to me is following the law has not been a winning strategy for those who would like to see the casinos moved to a more isolated location.
Posted by helpme | May 21, 2007 9:58 PM
Which laws are you refering to? For me to believe your argument, I have to believe that virtually every level of the courts is corrupt and willfully ignoring the law. The CasiNo opposition has lost nearly every legal challenge, if not every legal challenge. Without knowing the legal particularities of the case, I have a hard time believing the courts can be so wrong. Sure, the process may have been flawed politically, but that doesn't mean it's flawed legally. There's a difference. Like with most polarizing issues, the truth usually lies in the middle.
Posted by Anonymous | May 21, 2007 10:34 PM
I myself wanted to partake in this vote and vote in favor of what CasiNO is promoting -- restricting where casinos can be built -- but the opportunity was denied me. Even when I searched for ways to cast my vote online. I guess they figured that everyone who lives to the north of Cottman Avenue is all in favor of the casinos having carte blanche in the city, just so long as they don't build them up here. But my having been heavily tied to Ocean City, NJ at the time Atlantic City became casinoized -- Ocean City being 10 miles to A.C.'s south -- I know that from that for anyone to favor casinos being built in other parts of the city is the same as building them up here. In Ocean City's case it caught all the downside of Atlantic City's casinoization, except from the viewpoint of greedy, unscrupulous developers who waited for years to destroy Ocean City but up till then never had a good angle to. Atlantic City's casinoization gave them that angle. And Northeast Philadelphia's case is not all that dissimilar. So yeah, damn straight I wanted to be able to partake in that vote. But I never got the chance to. And here's the really ironic kicker: Was that lack of a chance to vote on my part all that different from CasiNO's own lament?
Posted by Steve W. | May 22, 2007 3:54 AM
I tried to vote online and couldn't so I called --they told me I was not registered to vote. I am registered to vote. Then my husband called--after we got back from voting-they told him he was not registered to vote either. He told them that we just got back from voting and he ALWAYS votes--their reply "sorry we don't have you on the list" I can't believe the news media would even report on this bogus vote.
Posted by Anonymous | May 22, 2007 10:40 AM
Casinos are here -deal with it-we need the work -how are you gonna light the place with candles?
Posted by Union | May 22, 2007 10:21 PM
Wow, Anonymous, that does really sound like the whole thing was rigged! And leave it to our biased media all throughout Philadelphia to omit that aspect from the story. And need we have to guess at if it would be reporting on that vote all differently had the casino Brian Tierney was invested in been granted a license? To which I can only say thank god we now have the Internet and blogs! (Although forget PhillyBlog.com which I learned about the hard way not too long ago. They seem to have truth filters at that site, meaning the moment you utter the truth when posting comments there you're banned for life.)
Meantime, to Union, I know where you're coming from. But let me just tell you I heard that same optimistic argument before. And in my saying this I'm on your side, believe me. But you're all wrong about what you think the casinos are going to do for you. Philadelphia, which still has a very sizeable blue-collar population, needs to have a massive return of good-paying blue collar jobs, yes. Absolutely! It's like what are we waiting for??! But the casinos ain't that. And my argument against the coming casinos is that they're going to greatly undermine the bringing back of legitimate blue collar industry to this city. Believe me, I'm not opposed to them because it will disrupt the lifestyles of a bunch of yuppies newly moving into Pennsport and Fishtown. Those people I couldn't care less about. But I DO care about this city's longstanding blue collar citizens on the road ahead. But this is a case where the thinking that's what's bad for the city's white collar citizenry will be good for its blue collar population is all wrong. For everybody's gonna get hurt from this thing from what I can determine -- except the casino owners, of course.
Posted by Steve W. | May 23, 2007 2:04 AM
I got a very nice form e-mail today from one of the anti casino groups thanking me for taking part in the very thing I was blocked from taking part in. In any event, if it was a rigged vote, at least they rigged it so the outcome was how I would've voted had I been allowed to partake.
Posted by Steve W. | May 24, 2007 12:11 AM