Jump to content

Station Square slots casino details unveiled


mjcatl2

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This is what it comes down to in my mind:

The community kick-back Isle of Capri is offering is a 290 million dollar multi-purpose arena that will save a sports franchise that brings millions upon millions of dollars a year in tax revenue to the city (not to mention all the intangible benefits of having a sports franchise in town).

Station Square is offering a 25 million dollar landmark fund. Total BS. This whole thing is fixed otherwise SS wouldn't have the audacity to put forth such a pathetic community give-back.

290 million plus a mjor league sports franchise for pgh vs. 25 million for Pittsburgh. Do the math people this is a friggin no brainer.

What I think is being fixed is the Penguins threatening to leave unless their casino partners get their plan pushed through. 295 million as a community kick back only looks like it's giving something to the community when the team actually threatens to leave, and it exploit's people's emotions and civic pride. What it's really doing is paying the Penguins 295 million for the arena the arena they already have while both sides view that the added profits to their ventures from being next to each other will offset/augment this "charitable donation." Otherwise they're actually building a cheaper casino in a worse location and actually giving less to the city than the Harrah'sr offer. This whole thing should be looked at in cut and dry economic terms, not in terms of kickbacks. We have a situation where both casinos would probably turn the same profit, but Harrah's would be doing so with a much more expensive complex in a much better location that makes more sense, and the only way they would profit more in the long run is by spuring more economic growth than Isle of Capri. Plus, my guess is that they would back every T extention put out on the table, just by looking at the proposed layout. That's altruism enough for me cos we all know there is enough money to build it but it's being allocated to needless roads in Altoona and improbable turnpike extentions. Nothing like a new economic engine in the city to support the T. So which one is really the more "altruistic" of the proposals all depends on how you look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I miss something? Where did Harrah's offer money for T extensions? I would be interested to know more about that.

As for the Pens threatening to leave... They have been saying that since before all this casino stuff. They WILL leave if they don't get a new arena, and frankly the city does need a new arena. I don't forsee it getting built any other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I miss something? Where did Harrah's offer money for T extensions? I would be interested to know more about that.

As for the Pens threatening to leave... They have been saying that since before all this casino stuff. They WILL leave if they don't get a new arena, and frankly the city does need a new arena. I don't forsee it getting built any other way.

No no what I was just trying to say is that they're well positioned on the T and therefore likely to join the groups that lobby for the T rather than, say, like Kennywood and the Waterfront which are lobbying for the Mon Fayette Expressway. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm just using my strategic analysis thinking cap today. I'm sick of how there is money floating in the government for transportation projects with less benefits and higher costs than the T, but no one ever supports them because no one's got pockets as deep as theme parks and big box retailers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the Penguins, I still would rather see it in Uptown. Station Square is already completely packed - and there is no room for road expansion. The traffic will be ungodly. That place is tacky enough without throwing a friggin slots parlor on top of everything.

Additionionally, developing SS is nice but it is already developed. The city core is in desperate need of attention and development. Uptown is part of DOWNTOWN. The south side is doing well, really well in fact. Downtown needs help majorly.

Also I need to remind you that the arena is not just for the Penguins - this is the mentality that is really harmful. The city needs a new arena and an arena is used well over 200 nights a year by circuses, wrestling, truck pulls, events and concerts etc. The NCAA tourney said they would not come back to Pgh as long as we still have Mellon arena for example. That is a huge national tournament that brings in a ton of money and exposure that Pittsburgh has lost because of our piece of sh*t arena.

The city can either get a 300 million dollar asset, now and for free. BTW the Penguins are GIVING it to the city- ie are making no money off ofit - the city willmake money off of it - OR we will have to build a new one with taxpayer money within the next decade and we won't have a major tenant because our professional sports team left town. And as long as your examining the economics - why don't you throw in the amusement and tourism dollars that a new arena would bring into downtown Pgh 200+ nights a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casinos are tacky and that is yet another reason it belongs at Station Square. Uptown makes absolutely no sense.

I agree with the point of a new arena. the city needs one in general. Concerts have skipped over Pgh for arenas that can better handle newer stages etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kasper, great point on the traffic situation, worse thing that can happen is another Waterfront disaster with the traffic flow, I don't believe there is much room left for ramps coming out of the Ft. Pitt and Liberty tunnels, whereas a drop off to the uptown area would be more feasible.

Mj, though I think SS is great for expansion, the problem I keep hearing from new arrivals is that the streets roll up at 6pm downtown--it is a graveyard, even though the northshore, strip and SS is hoping, they want a vibrant DOWNTOWN, the uptown casino--though not at the center of downtown--would do wonders for downtown ped traffic on Grant, Fifth, Forbes, Liberty after 6pm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very strong points, Kasper, but it still doesn't sway me. Hopefully I'll address some of them here because they're not that easy to respond to.

First of all, the traffic immediately around Station Square isn't that bad at all during nightlife hours and there are a number of different approaches when you "zoom out" a bit further away. To my knowledge, living next door to it, I am not aware of Station Square itself causing traffic nightmares. Most of the bad traffic seems to be patrons from East Carson looking for a highway exit, many sadly drunk. The same gridlock happens at the Birmingham Bridge, but not on the other side or even in front of Station Square. If anything, a casino would be a nice after-hours addition that could significantly diffuse last-call traffic jams and DUI incidents on the South Side. And many of the drive-in patrons would be coming from the same pool of people who already visit East Carson, thus having no net affect on traffic. A great deal of the other patrons would be hotel guests in and around the casino who can rely on shuttles, the T, walking, and perhaps even the inclines if a hotel gets put up there. Plus, a casino isn't an arena. You never actually have 45,000 people coming there all at once. It's not even a bar district that throws everyone to the curb at 145AM. The park-and-go-clubbing-jam-packed-in-a-warehouse and ampitheatre traffic would be gone. 1,200 condos would increase pedestrian and T commuters to Downtown by that amount, while reducing car traffic. I don't see it being the same as putting dozens of big-box retailers at the Waterfront. I see so many circumstances that would contribute to the final amount of traffic that it's difficult to say if there would be any change at all.

As for Uptown, I see greater issues. I see it as mirroring virtually all the urban planning blunders from half a century ago. It was a big mistake to put an arena up there in the first place.

If you ever hope to have a vibrant, populated Downtown then having 50,000 or more event-goers sharing the same parking, streets, and exit ramps as people who are trying to live and work in the city will cause nightmares. Think about it. The city's daytime population already goes up 41%, and a large part of the increase goes to Downtown. A daytime arena event could theoretically double the commuters Downtown. The current arena only gets by because Downtown itself is so dead at night, but when there is an event during working hours and backs up traffic for 2-3 hours, it gets people's blood boiling.

The majority of people going to a hockey game, circus, or concert don't patronize any of the establishments Downtown as it is even though they use the many parking garages and walk up to the arena. I'm guessing they might be attracted to the casino after an event, but there is no reason why anything else would change to entice them to stay Downtown and add value to the traffic they cause.

Next point is that putting an arena Uptown only made things worse for that area and keeping it there needlessly, when a new one could be built somewhere else will only help extend the same negative effects well into the future. The mistake that the urban planners made in the past was to think that if you plop any random large project onto low value properties, it will conveniently solve all the problems and erradicate poverty.

No matter what anyone wishes, the Hill will still be there, struggling, right next to the casinos and arenas. A bunch of minimum wage jobs will never replace the community-member owned businesses that the original arena displaced, and all the typical patrons, while not quite rich enough to hang out at upscale boutiques Downtown, aren't exactly the clientelle that a downtrotten low wage minority community can ever hope to serve. It has an obvious negative effect documented time after time in city after city. In our case, the arena was a major cause of the death of the then vibrant Pittsburgh jazz scene. To me it's one thing to throw a low income community's economy into dissaray, but a whole higher level of grievance when you destroy an important part of everyone's culture. So what would a new casino and a renewed arena Uptown do to Uptown? Well, it would strangle the so-far successfull investments being put into Crawford Square by putting them smack in between a depressed crime-prone area and a crime-enabling area. And it would never be as good for the overall economy as the Station Square plan.

Personally, I don't really care if the Penguins leave. I will admit that ::ducks head::. I like the Penguins, and Mario is such a charismatic man. The only reason I'm saying that is because our city is struggling to support 3 major teams at once with all the population loss and deteriorating infastructure combined. A well-planned casino and a jump-start to a new tourism industry can do a lot to change things. Before we know it we might have another hockey team plus basketball and heck, throw int he Olympics. The whole idea is to get the *most* out of a new development and *not* use it to subsidize a failing prior development. From a personal perspective, it would help if some city planners took a few pages out of military lore and read The Art of War. I'm sure many of them actually did because I see all kinds of folks reading that book. If we want big things to happen we have to be prepared to put our emotions aside and make some sacrifices.

And to counterpoint what Kasper said about major events skipping over the city, most if not all of the current events would still use the Mellon arena until a new one is built, even if the Penguins left. It wouldn't be such a dramatic loss to the city and wouldn't outweigh the potential benefits of finally moving the future arena to some place where it actually belongs. I have heard of many other events skipping over the city for the lack of one thing or another, including the disputed convention HQ hotel. What makes one more important than the other? (Nothing.)

A casino that is well-positioned for *tourists*, rather than sports fans, would be a major asset to attracting conventions, cultural goers, and Downtown shoppers. We were just discussing in another thread why people have such a negative impression of Pittsburgh when other cities have one cleaned up touristy area hidden from their huge blight. Well Station Square is that area for us, ideally situated to present the best aspects of our city to tourists and make them feel like they're really taking part *in* the city and it's varied history. Something that South Side Works doesn't have no matter how amazing it is, and Uptown won't have it either.

So, honestly I have no idea why the Isle of Capri doesn't just revise the location of their proposal to better suit the city. It wouldn't be so bad if they at least found a spot on the north side (btw, keep in mind that route 28 is finally being upgraded to get rid of the choke points). I think that if they don't make some major revisions to their location, Harrah's will easily beat them out by proposing at least partial funding for a north side arena, and I'm sure they have deep enough pockets and big enough interest to do *something* about it now that everyone is starting to play hardball. But I get the feeling that Isle of Capri doesn't have deep enough pockets to both buy land in a prime location and also build. It seems like the only significant land they'd have to pay for is the abandoned hospital over which the proposed arena would go. At least that's what it looks like to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blue, those are some valid points, I still think that the masses coming in through the tunnels from the southhills and westhills would have problems with the tight corners on the southshore.

I was kind of in love with the whole Columbus display the Pens and Isle of capri put on recently, you might be right Blue that the spillover wont really help DT much more from uptown then from SS. Main thing for me is how does one come in from Carnegie or Robinson without circling around downtown first . . . then again it might help downtown after all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blue, those are some valid points, I still think that the masses coming in through the tunnels from the southhills and westhills would have problems with the tight corners on the southshore.

I was kind of in love with the whole Columbus display the Pens and Isle of capri put on recently, you might be right Blue that the spillover wont really help DT much more from uptown then from SS. Main thing for me is how does one come in from Carnegie or Robinson without circling around downtown first . . . then again it might help downtown after all!

If you're wondering about Station Square, there are a couple ways to get there from the parkway, depending on which exit you take before the Fort Pitt tunnels. You can even get off at Greentree if you suspect too much traffic backed up before the uniontown/west end exits. If you take the uniontown exit, you can go through the Wabash HOV to get directly to Station Square or go up Woodruff and down Mcardle. You can also go down the road a bit and head through the Liberty tubes if you're heading towards the Mellon arena or if the Wabash is closed, incidentally. If you take the West End exit, Station Square is just a couple lights past West End Circle and I'd say that's not a bad way to go. If you happen to be coming via Ohio River Blvd for some reason, what I usually do is get off after the Duquesne bridge and cross the Smithfield. When I think about it, you don't really have to go around anything unless you're going the wrong way, and the Fort Pitt tunnel is the worst way to go.

Well I guess you weren't really asking that, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Unless you know how to drive around Downtown, there really isn't anywhere you could go without getting lost on the wrong side of a river, anyway. Road signs that use some common sense would go a long way!! IE Why is it called the Uniontown exit when it should say Mt Washington, to South Side, to Station Square? I can't count how many times I've had to guide someone from Robinson up to Mt Washington after they already passed through the Fort Pitt Tunnels. The only really bad approach to anything Downtown, period, is from the east. Your choices are limited between either a traffic jam or a gazillion red lights. And after that people mistakenly think that the Liberty Bridge is the way to get to Station Square, and they invariably end up turning around in my driveway on Mt Washington. One alternative is to get off at Glenwood and head down 2nd Ave, but again the road signs leave a lot to be desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blue,

Listening to you describe all that is hilarious, again its not really the fault of the city or even county on these things but if you told a sunbelter who is used to doubledecker 8 lane interstates with wide on and off ramps, the very best upgrades to the small strip of land known as the southshore are lacking. At leas with uptown you could have room for something that the neweconomy communities are used to big city interchanges that make sense:

plan-stack.jpg

Again I don't think uptown is much better for downtown then SS but traffic wise IF we can wake up our congressman to get us the $$$$, it might make more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blue,

Listening to you describe all that is hilarious, again its not really the fault of the city or even county on these things but if you told a sunbelter who is used to doubledecker 8 lane interstates with wide on and off ramps, the very best upgrades to the small strip of land known as the southshore are lacking. At leas with uptown you could have room for something that the neweconomy communities are used to big city interchanges that make sense:

Again I don't think uptown is much better for downtown then SS but traffic wise IF we can wake up our congressman to get us the $$$$, it might make more sense.

haha. Well, part of why I'm at a new urbanism forum is because I am strongly against the sunbelter mentality. The image you're showing by the way looks to be a stack interchange between two freeways. If anything, there is only room in the city to replace some of the stunted-at-birth partial clovers and god-knows-what interchanges we have with some form of SPUI, which would be great. And actually I think the state is doing a fair deal of hardcore re-engineering. They just recently re-did the whole Fort Pitt and Duquesne bridge interchange and the West End Circle and both are really good jobs. Now they're rebuilding the Blvd of the Allies bridge starting this summer and I'm all about fixing that death trap ( http://www.otma-pgh.org/project_sr885/default.aspx ). They're also working getting some underpasses for 28 to get rid of those nightmarish traffic lights! So I think things will be okay.

You are right, Uptown has much better access ramps for dum-dums who don't know how to use a map (as you tactfully reffer to as new economy communities), but the north side is just as easy to get to if not easier. And I'm not advocating a new arena on the South Side, either! But the problem Uptown starts when you start trying to find a parking space, especially one for less than 12 bucks. Then you have all these people going all over Downtown and saturating the parking garages, walking up to the arena, and then not being able to find their way back out to the freeway anyway. The access ramps for Uptown would be really good at serving some other purpose, like a mixed use community featuring some high-rise residential and a future office tower or two. The question then becomes, does anyone still want to build a casino Uptown, without a new arena? That seems pretty isolated and boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think those are some good points but I still prefer the Isle of Capri plan. Yes it would put another arena in the lower Hill, but it would also restore the street grid there and put in a new neighborhood. This may or may not help Downtown, but it would certainly be a good thing. And I think a casino in that area would be almost as easily accessible to tourists as one at SS. It's close to several hotels and the convention center. Reasonable walking distance from the T as well. It isn't right across the street from the T, but it's walkable.

Station Square is already a nice area for tourists, with lots to do. It would certainly be nice to have those condos there but... I don't think SS needs a shot in the arm, whereas the lower Hill does. And I think a new arena for free is a great gift for the whole city. How many locals would really make use of the expanded Station Square, compared to a new arena?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Station Square is already a nice area for tourists, with lots to do. It would certainly be nice to have those condos there but... I don't think SS needs a shot in the arm, whereas the lower Hill does. And I think a new arena for free is a great gift for the whole city. How many locals would really make use of the expanded Station Square, compared to a new arena?

Well as I just mentioned in another thread, it's not exactly free if the state is giving up $81 million a year in tax revenue for the rest of eternity by awarding a casino just because they're offering to fund an arena. For all those little bits like location, walking distance, tourism, etc, it's not just OK to brush it off if that's the difference between a $400 and $550 million per year revenue. I think revenue figures is what the gaming board will look at very carefully, which is what they said they're going to do. Their job is to bring in the most money to the state and that's the whole entire idea of bringing casinos in the first place. But on the same token, if they select Harrah's, that is a good reason for the state to fess up the money to fund a new arena immediately (it will be recouped through casino taxes anyhow). The city may not have the credit rating right now for a project that's 3/4ths of last year's entire budget, but the state has deeper pockets and this revenue is going to them... so fair's fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not just OK to brush it off if that's the difference between a $400 and $550 million per year revenue.

First of all those are predictions only - and the bidders have an incentive to embellish these figures (particulary Harrahs since they aren't offering as much to the city). Upon closer unbiased review, I think there won't be much of a difference considering both sites are limited to 5,000 slot machines and there is only one slots parlor in the city.

FYI - regarding those spearheading the SS proposal

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06029/646199.stm

The purchase was complemented by a series of ambitious promises. They'd build an 18,000-seat arena, moving the Nets from their New Jersey digs to Brooklyn. They'd remake the part of Brooklyn known as Atlantic Yards, on and around a railroad junction. They'd tear down some old buildings, and replace them with more than a dozen new ones, office towers and up to 5,000 residential units. They'd create 10,000 jobs. They'd invest $3.5 billion.

None of that has happened, because, in large part, of community opposition. Among the concerns is the hundreds of millions in public subsidies which would be required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all those are predictions only - and the bidders have an incentive to embellish these figures (particulary Harrahs since they aren't offering as much to the city). Upon closer unbiased review, I think there won't be much of a difference considering both sites are limited to 5,000 slot machines and there is only one slots parlor in the city.

Well I'm no expert except for a few years of game theory and an industrial organization class or two, but I'd say if something's true for one player then it's true for the rest. If one embelishes their estimates, the others have an incentive to either embelish theirs or to call foul on the embelisher's methods. How do we know that 400 million for one casino isn't as much or more of an embelishment than 550 million for another?

If it was as simple as 5,000 slot machines working around the clock then it wouldn't matter if you put the thing on the moon, but if they are operating 18 hours a day 365 days a year, it's tough to say that they would be utilized even 10% of the time depending on the location and the other ammeneties. There is a large margin for improvement!

There is a very plausible explanation for the rather extravagant offerings of the other bids. And we all know not to look a gift horse in the mouth, right? These offers could simply reflect the fact that the first rule of real estate is location, location, location. And in some locations it won't matter if you built a $300 million casino or a $500 million casino because the revenues will simply not increase after a point. Trust me when I say this, but the difference in the expenditure on the casino facilities themselves is the clearest indication of their expected yearly revenues... those numbers just don't lie because these people haven't gotten to be development moguls by making wild guesses about what to put into a location. And from the looks of the bids and the gifts, seed money is NOT an issue.

So offering to build an arena is a way to differentiate yourself from the field without wasting an extra dime on needlessly bolstering casino ammeneties. If anyone thinks that these billion dollar investments from venture capital has any real concern for philantropy, they'd be flat wrong. Some proposals are simply formulated to get lower returns than others, but it's still better than losing the bid altogether. The gifts are also a way to actually hurt the other bidders. By creating a public and political maelstorm over the idea of tying slots to a new arena, they are daring Forrest City to "match" their offer and perhaps hope that Forrest City can't cope with an even bigger than the already biggest investment or overcome the political pressures, irregardless of whose bid is the most economically viable.

So what does Forrest City have that none of the others have? Well it owns Station Square! So if we're still playing this little game where location is everything, they have the ace in the hole. They were the original player in 1994 who envisioned a casino in Pittsburgh and they made the investment, aquired the best possible location, and kept putting more money into it for over 10 years for the very purpose of creating the ideal venue for a casino. I'm willing to guess that without their decade-long drive for a casino and their support of the local politicians that we might not even be talking about having a casino in Pittsburgh right now. In any case none of the other bids can touch them on this.

FYI - regarding those spearheading the SS proposal

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06029/646199.stm

The purchase was complemented by a series of ambitious promises. They'd build an 18,000-seat arena, moving the Nets from their New Jersey digs to Brooklyn. They'd remake the part of Brooklyn known as Atlantic Yards, on and around a railroad junction. They'd tear down some old buildings, and replace them with more than a dozen new ones, office towers and up to 5,000 residential units. They'd create 10,000 jobs. They'd invest $3.5 billion.

None of that has happened, because, in large part, of community opposition. Among the concerns is the hundreds of millions in public subsidies which would be required.

IMO you stressed the wrong part of that sentence. The overall impression I got was that Forrest City is a good corporate citizen. Did they make mistakes in their prior bids? Yes! They made a lot of promises while failing to get politicians on their side. Then because of both counts they couldn't move forward without political support and it looked like they were the ones who hurt the public by making an investment in their city. We have basically the same situation on the Convention Center front, where the original plan for a HQ hotel is being blocked for political reasons while the convention center is getting jeered at. And this isn't even talking about a casino where they can reasonably make a large profit. We're talking about a sports venue and a team that they probably saved from going to Kansas City or someplace only to look like the bad guys for it. Of course that's just a wild guess on my part. But at least it's understandable if they don't want to deal with another major sport franchise.

But did Forrest City screw up on their developments or were they actually unwilling to follow through on their proposals? It doesn't seem that way. Did they somehow cheat Pittsburgh with Station Square? It seems like they did an incredibly good job so far. It seems like the only thing they lacked was the political knowhow to get a casino project off the ground in the past. That's what I get out of this article. Contrary to what I'm hearing about it being a fix, this article has helped me understand exactly where Forrest City is coming from, why they would want to keep extravagant promises to the minimum while getting politicians to support even the idea of casinos in general. Not only does it look like they helped pave the way for casinos in PA in the first place, but they have been in this game for a while and learned from their mistakes. It would be such a shame if they lost the bid and then the other developer failed to come through on their bids because, oh, the costs went up and they needed some subsidy to finish the job, because there was some fine print that Joe Public failed to read.

PS I keep writing Forrest Hill instead of Forrest City, so if I haven't edited it in some spot you'll have to forgive me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the Isle of Capri proposal would create a lot of new tax revenue too, since it includes basically a whole new neighborhood on what's now parking lots. Besides, who is to say the state would be willing to pay for a new arena even if they did have an extra $81mill in property taxes to play with?

I am not saying Forest City hasn't got a good proposal. And goodness knows they have been waiting for a long time. But when I look at everything, I think we need the Isle of Capri project more. No bad can possibly come of restoring the street grid in the lower Hill. That is something that likely won't happen for a very long time otherwise. But Station Square... it is already a tourist destination, already a great night spot.

Another thing to consider: It is only a matter of time before the state decides to allow more slots parlors. How could they not? And surely that will mean at least one more license for Pittsburgh... Maybe then Forest City can have their casino, or riverboat parlor. They'll still be around for it. The Pens won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the proposal for the Hill would best benefit Pittsburgh and downtown. Yes, Station Squares plan is beautiful, but a casino would not be a benefit to it. This development should have happened already instead they purposely have been waiting for the casino rights. This development will happen, with or with out a casino. Also, their partners and associations wreak of corruption.

To compare the Hill proposal to Chatham Square is unqualified. Chatham Square was built at a period when all urban developments around trhe world were being built in this manner.

I also think that having a casino tied to the new arena would attract large "Vegas" type productions would be great draw and assett. I also secretly hope that a new arena might someday woo an NBA team to Pittsburgh.

Bottom line, developments proposed for Station Square, the North Shore or the Strip will happen with or with out a casino. It is inevetable. The success of downtown living and riverfront development will continue. It is the hill that will need some help and a new arena will come from it.

I should add that rael estate in the Bluff areas and the Lower Hill are very much in play and this is a sign that interest is high and not necessarily because of a new arena/casino plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My alma mater is not pleased with the IOC's proposal of a casino in their backyard. I have to say that I hadn't thought of that and it certainly makes sense that the university would not want a casino there. I happen to love every aspect of the proposal except for the casino in Uptown (for logistical reasons).

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06034/649225.stm

Here is a portion with Duquesne's President:

Mr. Dougherty added that gambling in other places also has contributed to alcohol problems, drugs, prostitution and other crimes. He said it was solely the Catholic university's concern for students that led to the opposition.

"The moral aspect is our obligation as an administration to look out for the best interests of our students," he said. "That's the heart of the moral issue."

Mr. Dougherty said the university has been engaged in discussions with the Penguins for some time about the proposed casino. In notifying the team of its formal opposition, the conversation was "amicable," he said, "but they were disappointed."

"We understand the position up there. I don't hold anything against the Penguins. I wish the community had figured out a way to assist them two or three years ago," he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter where you put the casino... somebody's gonna be angry. Mt. Washington residents will probably be angry about having a casino right below them at Station Square (they've complained about the Chevrolet Amphitheater).

What don't Mt Washington residents complain about? They want the most spectacular view in the country, which is also an easy commute to downtown etc, and they don't want the city when it is inconveniant to them. Somebody needs to tell them where to go and then revisit the Ritz proposal and other failed condo ideas and get on with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^LOL, if you had to pay Mt. Washington prices you'd complain about most everything too :P

That is a good point about Duquesne being so close to the uptown redevelopment, consider though that it is not JUST a casino, lots of that area are going to be mom and pop shops, almost like a Walnut or 5th Avenue in Shadyside and Oakland respectively. The arena would bring some high class acts and possibly some NCAA tournys for March madness in, the casino would be just one aspect of the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, how the heat is starting to kick up a notch on this issue!

Myron Cope has quite the letter within today's Post-Gazette opinion section (not to mention, another comment about this issue - elsewhere in that particular section), and Rendell could'nt be interviewed on local tv yesterday during our Steelers victory parade without many, chanting in unison, both: "Mario!" and "New Arena!".

Only FSN's Stan Savran acknowledged the very obvious, very loud chants*...

*EDIT: Until this morning, when Steigerwald did on KDKA's morning news broadcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.