WILL MASHANTUCKETS END UP IN PHILADELPHIA?

Foxwoods’ Philadelphia plan stands at crossroad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By William Sokolic
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted Nov 06, 2009 @ 11:41 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia — It’s been a long, hard road for Foxwoods Development Company in its bid to open a casino along the South Philadelphia waterfront.

The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board accepted the company’s bid in December 2006 to build a stand-alone casino complex. But after opposition from neighborhood groups, the city suggested Foxwoods look toward the center of the city, in the area of a major shopping district called The Gallery.

Two sites were proposed. Two sites were shot down, again because of community anger.

Moreover, the city dragged its feet, ignoring an April 2008 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling directing Philadelphia to approve zoning for the original site. A month later, the gaming board issued a license with the proviso that 1,500 slot machines be ready for business one year later.

When May rolled around, Foxwoods asked for more time because of “numerous obstacles beyond its control.” The gaming board agreed to a new date of May 20, 2011, but with an ultimatum that Foxwoods turn its attention back to the original waterfront site.

“We were pleased and encouraged by the board’s decision to extend the license,” said Gary D. Armentrout, president of the St. Louis-based Foxwoods Development Company, an arm of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation. “They are as anxious to get opened fast as we are. This is the first time in a long time we made significance progress on that site.”

With less than 20 months left on the deadline, the question before the development company and its Philadelphia partners is whether it would be wiser to build an interim casino — one that could be incorporated into the final design — or a temporary one that would be torn down once a permanent venue is finished, Armentrout said.

While both would provide the minimum 1,500 slot machines, an interim version is preferable, he said.

“We’ve put conceptual designs on paper, and we are working through them right now,” Armentrout said. “The concern that has risen is whether we could be opened by the date because an interim facility would take longer to build and open. A temporary would be faster.”

A temporary venue is not unheard of to get the slot revenue going to help finance a permanent one, said Clyde W. Barrow, director of the Center for Policy and Analysis at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

“With an interim, it could take longer to get such revenues,” Barrow said.

And such casinos are often well constructed.

“They’re not a tent or a tin can,” Barrow said.

The gaming board would need to approve a decision to go temporary.

“A temporary casino would be a substantial change for board review,” spokesman Richard McGarvey said.

Should the date come without a casino, then what?

“It is in our purview to lift the license,” McGarvey said.

One thing is certain. Unless the gaming board says otherwise, Foxwoods is in for the long haul.
“I do not think they can afford to give up the potential of a very lucrative Philadelphia market,” Barrow said.

If Massachusetts introduces casinos, Foxwoods would be affected by a loss of business.

“This is part of a larger diversification process to cushion it against such losses,” Barrow said.