A day after state gambling regulators unanimously rejected the application to open a $150 million slots parlor in downtown Lancaster, backers of the local casino say they are unsure whether they will appeal.
To overturn the gaming board’s decision, they must prove that the bond they submitted with their Dec. 28 application was signed.
On Thursday, gaming board officials and staff members stated categorically that it wasn’t.
“We’ve seen a couple versions of the bond, and none of them have been signed by the surety company,” Susan Hensel, director of licensing, told board members Thursday.
Chris Raphael, CEO of Pennsylvania Gaming Group LLC, said today he hadn’t yet seen the ruling but would decide on an appeal once he could study it.
“We believe all of (the application) is technically correct, but we have to review what they’re saying,” Raphael said. “We have to conform to the law, we understand that.”
In a 7-0 vote Thursday, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board turned down the proposal submitted by local attorneys Jerome Finefrock and James Nettleton Jr. on behalf of the Pennsylvania Gaming Group.
The board’s official ruling cited deficiencies in the application, namely the absence of a signed bond for $50 million — the cost of a slots license.
Additionally, the board said the group’s bond was not accompanied by a required letter of credit.
The gaming board has given Pennsylvania Gaming 10 days to challenge the ruling by showing that the application was, in fact, complete on its Dec. 28 due date.
During Thursday’s meeting, some Gaming Control Board members were sharply critical of the incomplete state of Pennsylvania Gaming Group’s application; they even ridiculed it, some would say.
“We’re not denying this application, we’re saying that no application was ever submitted,” said board member William P. Conaboy.
The board members said the state would even return $7,500 of the $21,050 in application fees the group has already paid.
“This submission does not reach the level of an application for which non-refundable fees apply,” said Susan Hensel, the board’s director of licensing. “We’re not denying it, we’re returning it.”
Thomas Decker, the board chairman, likened the unsigned $50 million bond to an unsigned personal check.
“The deficiency in this application ... relates to the fact that a bond which accompanied the application was unsigned by any bond company,” he said. “An unsigned check ... does that work?”
The proposal has faced significant opposition from anti-gambling groups and all but one of the county’s state lawmakers.
“The decision is a giant step forward in preserving the traditional values for which our county is so well known,” state Sen. Gibson E. Armstrong said in a statement released after Thursday’s decision.
“Of course I’m very pleased,” said state Sen. David “Chip” Brightbill, who helped Armstrong collect more than 15,000 signatures from county residents on a petition opposing the project.
“In the final analysis, you never know, but I’m very optimistic at this point,” Brightbill said this morning.
Dianne Berlin, an anti-gambling activist who has organized residents against the proposal, greeted Thursday’s news with cautious optimism.
“I really think that they have an excellent reason for throwing it out, but I won’t breathe easily until after the ten days have passed.”
Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray, who is against a downtown casino, said he had mixed feelings about the ruling.
“Frankly I’m not real surprised,” he said, before adding: “I’m disappointed that it’s not an option for the city at this point and that we have to explore other options to obtain funding for our schools and our city.”
Said U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, a Republican: “(Thursday’s) decision is a win for the people of Lancaster County.
“Over the past few months, thousands of community members have voiced their strong opposition to this casino and the negative impact that would come with it.
“I believe this grass-roots opposition played an important role in today’s ruling, and I thank everyone who spoke up against this unwanted casino.”
Talkback on LancasterOnline
Welcome to the new TalkBack on LancasterOnline. Please use the comment box below to share your opinion on this
article. If you would prefer to use the previous TalkBack forums instead, please use this link.
