Community members and casino operators debated the proposed Philadelphia slot parlors during a public hearing over the past three days.
Five operators have submitted proposals in hope of winning one of Philadelphia's two slot-parlor licenses. The state's Gaming Control Board will decide which operators receive licenses by mid-December.
Reactions during the hearings from community groups and politicians were mixed, with some supporting specific plans and others speaking more generally about concerns associated with the project.
The casino operators touted the benefits of their proposals and made concluding arguments yesterday at Drexel University's Bossone Auditorium, following testimony from more than 200 speakers.
The testimony mainly focused on concerns over quality of life, traffic and minority and local involvement.
However, individuals also took the stand to voice support for certain casinos to the Gaming Board, which was established in 2004 after the state legislature voted to allow slots in Pennsylvania in an effort to lower property taxes.
Board spokesman Nick Hays said the two most important considerations in selecting operators are the character and background of the applicants and the cost of the slots proposals.
He added that the way in which each proposal addresses hiring a diverse staff and problems due to compulsive gambling would also be factors in the decision.
State law requires that the proposals include ways to maintain a racially diverse casino staff.
Some operators used closing statements to defend their proposals from criticism.
Pat Croce -- a partner of TrumpStreet casinos, which has submitted an application -- responded to the suggestion that Trump's Atlantic City casinos would cause a conflict of interest.
Accusations of "Trump favoring Jersey casinos against Philadelphia is an unwarranted attack," Croce said. "There's not a snowball's chance in Hades that Trump is going to ... let any money go across the bridge to South Jersey."
Regardless, at the end of the presentation, members in the audience chanted, "No TrumpStreet!"
City Councilman Frank Rizzo, who addressed the board Monday, said he liked the SugarHouse Casino proposal best but that any of them would be acceptable.
"We have to stay in step with the rest of the world. Gaming is something tourism now requires," Rizzo said.
Some attending the hearings worried about the effect of the casinos on surrounding neighborhoods.
Arun Ivatury, the spokesman for a regional service union, said his union opposed the TrumpStreet plan because of possible effects on the Nicetown neighborhood of Philadelphia where the casino would be situated.
"We have 400 members that live in the community of the [proposed TrumpStreet] site," Ivatury said. "Why should [a casino] be smack in the middle of a neighborhood?"
Jethro Heiko, who lives one block from the proposed SugarHouse site, wanted to add a year's delay to the hearings to allow for more public concerns to be addressed.
"We don't want to push this [casino] on other communities, either," Heiko said.
Yesterday's public hearing was the sixth in Pennsylvania. Board members have scheduled 12 more hearings across the state, one of which will take place in Philadelphia on May 12.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.