SugarHouse joins Blatstein in appeal
As has been the case with each of the 13 casino licenses approved by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, a losing bidder has exercised the right provided in the state’s gaming law to appeal the board’s decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The one difference in the case of the board’s recent decision to award the second casino license for Philadelphia to Live! Hotel and Casino, a joint venture of Cordish Companies and Greenwood Racing, is that one of the currently licensed casinos is joining in the appeal. SugarHouse, the current Philadelphia casino, has joined Bart Blatstein’s Tower Entertainment, which submitted a bid to create the Provence casino resort at the site of the former Philadelphia Inquirer building, in appealing the board’s decision to award the second city license to Live!
SugarHouse executives were very vocal during the fall licensing hearings and in the weeks leading to the board’s decision in urging the board to delay the awarding of the second casino license for Philadelphia, saying the gaming market in the Philadelphia region is already oversaturated. Blatstein, the local developer whose Provence project was planned as a multi-use entertainment and gaming development over several blocks in the north Center City district, criticized the board’s decision on Live!, calling it just another “box with slots” that would do nothing more than cannibalize other casinos.
The state Supreme Court has never overturned a decision of the Gaming Control Board. The board has defended the decision on Live! as having the best revenue potential, since it is adjacent to the city’s sports complex in the district that includes the stadiums of the NFL’s Philadelphia Eagles and the Major League Phillies, and the arena of the NHL’s Flyers. Board members have pointed to the hundreds of sports events every year that will draw foot traffic to the casino.
The official basis for the appeal, according to documents filed with the court, is that:
• Pennsylvania’s gaming act has specific restrictions on individuals and/or entities maintaining ownership interests in multiple casino licensees. As a result, Tower says the board violated the state law by awarding the casino license to Live!, since Greenwood also owns Parx Casino in Bensalem, which “exceed the thresholds” of the gaming act. The Live! partnership has noted that Greenwood’s ownership does not exceed the one-third limit set out in the law for ownership of a second casino.
• Following change in its ownership structure, the board did not allow other applicants the chance to present evidence related to this new ownership structure, which the board was required to do under its own regulations. The gaming act also prevents owners of racetracks who are eligible to apply for a category 1 (racetrack) slot machine license from applying for a category 2 slot machine license. Tower says Stadium should have been found ineligible to apply for the last casino license.
• One of the legislature’s stated purposes in enacting the gaming law was to prevent the casino industry from being monopolized by a few companies..
“The appeals to the granting of a casino license to our partnership are without merit and have no impact on our proceeding at full speed on our architectural drawings, permitting and construction,” said David Cordish, co-chairman of Cordish Co., according to Yogonet. “As precedent, there have been, in the history of casino gaming awards in the state of Pennsylvania, five previous attempts to overturn awards granted by the (board).
“In all five instances, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the award of the license and the present award presents an equally strong, if not stronger, well-considered conclusion by the commission.”
