Reopen casino bidding
Four years after the Legislature passed a gambling law that proponents hailed as comprehensive and transparent, fundamental questions continue to crop up for which lawmakers and regulators have no answers. There have been many, ranging from jurisdictional disputes between the state police and the Gaming Control Board, to the scant consideration of local interests in the selection of casino sites.
Add to the list another fundamental question: Who gets to select casino operators, the Gaming Control Board or casino investors? Construction on the $780 million Pittsburgh North Shore casino has stopped because developer Don Barden, basically, has run out of money.
Mr. Barden has promoted a plan under which he would retain a minority interest while selling a 75 percent interest to a Chicago-based consortium headed by real estate investor Neil Bluhm – some members of which already hold stakes in the Sugar House Casino project in Philadelphia.
Local government officials from Pittsburgh and Allegheny County endorse the plan for the sake of expediency. Projected revenue from the casino is a key component of a plan to build a new arena for the Pittsburgh Penguins, on which work has begun. And contractors are waiting to be paid.
State lawmakers and the administration also are interested in expediency because other revenue from the casino is slated for use in statewide local property tax reductions.
The Barden proposal might well be fine. But there is no way to know if it is the best option without reopening the licensing process in order to consider other proposals. The Gaming Control Board should do so.
The Gaming Control Board already has approved license transfers for casinos in Chester and at Penn National racecourse near Harrisburg. But the original licensees built and opened those casinos, which continued to operate as the board considered the transfers.
In the Pittsburgh case, the Rendell administration should craft a loan of state funds to the Pittsburgh arena project against the projected casino revenue. That would relieve the pressure and enable the Gaming Control Board to take its time and consider all of the possibilities for finishing the casino project.
That approach would better fulfill gambling proponents’ original vow that licensing would be a transparent process in the public interest.