Gettysburg casino foes rally

Gettysburg casino foes rally

There are 55 comments on the Evening Sun story from Feb 19, 2010, titled Gettysburg casino foes rally. In it, Evening Sun reports that:

Susan Star Paddock with No Casino Gettysburg speaks at a meeting at Gettysburg Fire Hall Thursday night.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Evening Sun.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
don from new oxford

Muncy, PA

#1 Feb 19, 2010
First of all the no casino folks need to know the RESORT GAMING LICENSE Rules. The average joe off the street cant gamble he must be staying at the resort. That means an adult gambling group visiting the resort just might visit some of the shops in town! Now i hear from alot of OUT OF TOWNERS that they dont want a casino resort in Gettysburg LOL dont go to it them stay on rt 15 another exit and you will never know its there. I read that a judge ruled the shopping center can be built !!! MORE TRAFFIC, MORE CRIME , MORE POLICE NEEDED MORE $$$$ NO no tax dollars to the area hey Susan wheres the NO SHOPPING CENTER SIGNS !!!!!!!!!
Mack

Denver, PA

#2 Feb 19, 2010
C'mon, don from new oxford, wake up and smell the coffee. Do you really think that David LeVan and his partners are going to turn away paying customers based on the occupancy limits of the hotel? They'll just offer "temporary"/"tr ial" memberships for $10 or $20 at the door, good for the weekend, three days, or a week. They thus have a great loophole and get to fleece people going and coming (just like the Gettysburg Foundation and its glorious visitors' center).
Do you REALLY think they'll turn down money??
Just because it's the LAW (for which they have no respect anyway)??
That's why lawyers hunt loopholes.
Frank

Gettysburg, PA

#3 Feb 19, 2010
Save your quarters the casino is comeing
College

Lancaster, PA

#5 Feb 19, 2010
Sry I need to save my Quarters, dimes, nickels, and my newly designed pennies side note:( I prefer Lincoln Memorial on the Back) for my Kids college tuition. Also, the tax man. But if u win Frank Remember me :).
half baked tater

Hanover, PA

#6 Feb 19, 2010
savin mi taters ta plai et da carsina in geddyburgh
Average Joe

Gettysburg, PA

#7 Feb 19, 2010
I believe the term is called "Non-de minimis consideration." It is a $10 fee paid to the resort so that you can use one or more of the amenities. By using one or more of the amenities, you are eligible to enter the gaming area.

There is your $10 fee so that the Average Joe can gamble.

Another interesting point is that the state just reduced the fee from $25 to $10.
STSM

Newville, PA

#8 Feb 19, 2010
I guarantee you if this casino gets approved and built, anyone will be able to go there to buy drugs and hookers. I hope the ghost of every man who died in the battle haunt the place.
love gettysurg as it is

Gettysburg, PA

#9 Feb 19, 2010
That $10 entry to the casino will encourage people to go there for dinner instead of existing restaurants. Investors plan "a variety of casual and fine dining restaurants" so that's where folks would spend their $10 so they could go in and gamble. They can also get free drinks IN the casino, so there go the bars in town. Other places have smoking bans, but they can smoke up a storm in the casino. Oh there will be lots of "comps" as well.

Since: Jan 10

Gettysburg, PA

#10 Feb 19, 2010
I find it interesting that on the Mason Dixon web site, they never mention the "Nom di Minimis" requirement of the $10.00 expenditure. Its never brough up in news stories either.

Ask most people and they think you will just walk in to gamble. That requirement will take its toll on the local restaurants and bars. Add to that the smoking exemption the casino will have and comps back to reimburse for the meals or even a portion of it. Local eateries will not be able to compete. Not just in Gettysburg, but from all over the area. You will watch your local eateries lose business big time
eric burns

Hanover, PA

#11 Feb 19, 2010
like i said once before why not put the casino in hanover

what does the world have against this lovely factory town

casino hanover should be the battle cry

let the good times roll

eric burns
Tolouse

Gettysburg, PA

#12 Feb 19, 2010
love gettysurg as it is wrote:
That $10 entry to the casino will encourage people to go there for dinner instead of existing restaurants. Investors plan "a variety of casual and fine dining restaurants" so that's where folks would spend their $10 so they could go in and gamble. They can also get free drinks IN the casino, so there go the bars in town. Other places have smoking bans, but they can smoke up a storm in the casino. Oh there will be lots of "comps" as well.
Is that why there is already an application for a liquor license posted at All-Star?
Nile Grazowski

Gettysburg, PA

#13 Feb 20, 2010
STSM wrote:
I guarantee you if this casino gets approved and built, anyone will be able to go there to buy drugs and hookers. I hope the ghost of every man who died in the battle haunt the place.
And you can guarantee this how? Have you seen this at the other PA casinos or are you just making stuff up as you go?
Nile Grazowski

Gettysburg, PA

#14 Feb 20, 2010
eric burns wrote:
like i said once before why not put the casino in hanover
what does the world have against this lovely factory town
casino hanover should be the battle cry
let the good times roll
eric burns
The casino liscense being sought has to be put in place at a tourist destination on an already existing site. Hanover does not fit that bill, Gettysburg does. Find another place like the Eisenhower in Adams County.

It is also Dave Levans $ to spend and he can try to put it wherever he wants. He is a Gburg native and believes he is doing the right thing for his home town

Since: Jan 10

Gettysburg, PA

#15 Feb 20, 2010
Nile Grazowski wrote:
<quoted text>
The casino liscense being sought has to be put in place at a tourist destination on an already existing site. Hanover does not fit that bill, Gettysburg does. Find another place like the Eisenhower in Adams County.
It is also Dave Levans $ to spend and he can try to put it wherever he wants. He is a Gburg native and believes he is doing the right thing for his home town
Some of us who live here obviously disagree. Its not like there are just one or two of us who feel that way. There was a lot of folks at the meeting that feel the same way. If its so obviously the right thing for all of us, how come its causing so much dissension in the community? I don't remember anything causing this much of a problem here except for the last casino bid. Makes you think.

The good news is that the PA Gaming Board considers everyones input, not just yours or Mr. Levan's
guzzie googenheim

Gardners, PA

#16 Feb 20, 2010
Please... someone get some common sense! A casino on the far side of town,(not even within Gettysburg proper) will generate enough revenue to bolster this economically depressed area... We should all contribute to a fund to purchase asbestos underwear for all the "no casino" folks... They will be the first to complain about higher taxes, unemployment etc....
Thanks for Nothing MDR

Lancaster, PA

#17 Feb 20, 2010
Great I can spend my mortgae money and my kids can practice their sports with a lot of drunks. Thanks Mason Dixon TAKING away for the kids I see. Way to go. What else is in store? By the way I think the signs could be improved on.

NO CASINO
Nile Grazowski

Gettysburg, PA

#18 Feb 20, 2010
Living in Gettysburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of us who live here obviously disagree. Its not like there are just one or two of us who feel that way. There was a lot of folks at the meeting that feel the same way. If its so obviously the right thing for all of us, how come its causing so much dissension in the community? I don't remember anything causing this much of a problem here except for the last casino bid. Makes you think.
The good news is that the PA Gaming Board considers everyones input, not just yours or Mr. Levan's
You are welcome to disagree but ultimately it is DL's $ and he can try to do with it as he pleases. Your opinion can not effect the attempt.
Thanks for Nothing MDR

Lancaster, PA

#19 Feb 20, 2010
Nile Grazowski wrote:
<quoted text>
You are welcome to disagree but ultimately it is DL's $ and he can try to do with it as he pleases. Your opinion can not effect the attempt.
Yes I agree, it my be his money, but his town. If some ppl do not like what is happening we are allowed to speak up.

Since: Jan 10

Gettysburg, PA

#20 Feb 20, 2010
Nile Grazowski wrote:
<quoted text>
You are welcome to disagree but ultimately it is DL's $ and he can try to do with it as he pleases. Your opinion can not effect the attempt.
Actually Nile, if history proves anything, our opinions indeed can effect the attempt. Everyone thought it was a done deal the last time. If you read the PGCB statement after the last time, they acknowleded that they did consider the opposition as part of the decision.

Since: Jan 10

Gettysburg, PA

#21 Feb 20, 2010
The Crossroads location is primarily rural without nearby population centers. As discussed below in Section C, Crossroads touts its location as desirable because of the populations to the South in the Baltimore/Washington D.C. markets. As addressed in that Section, the Board finds that Crossroads has not demonstrated to the Board’s satisfaction through credible evidence that the Crossroad’s location presents the advantages and benefits asserted by Crossroads...

......With respect to the Crossroads project, Crossroads presented substantial testimony that it will rely in large part on the Baltimore, Maryland and Washington D.C. areas for its patronage and that 60% to 65% of its revenues would originate from outside the Commonwealth. The Gettysburg area itself is primarily a rural area without large population centers nearby to sustain the casino, thus the emphasis on the market to the South. In theory, this strategy is appealing. However, during the licensing hearings, Gettysburg presented testimony that it was “virtually the same drive time away” from the Baltimore/Washington D.C. market as Charlestown slots in West Virginia and that Charlestown had a casino win of $437 million in the fiscal year ending January 30, 2006. While that number is significant, the Board was not presented with any credible evidence to demonstrate how much of that Charlestown business could be expected to leave thatfacility and travel north to Gettysburg.
Further, the Board received testimony concerning the possibility of slot machines being introduced in Maryland and the impact that would have on the Gettysburg property. Gettysburg proponents testified that that they do not believe gaming legislation will be passed in Maryland in the “near future” but that even if it did,“we estimate that the revenue impact on Crossroads will be between 15 and 20 percent leaving Crossroads a substantial cushion above its break-even revenue level.” See Hearing transcript at p. 62. While the Board certainly is comforted by the testimony that Crossroads would have a cushion above its break-even revenue level, since the Board has a strong interest in “protecting its product” by assuring that the chosen casinos stay in business, a twenty percent decline in revenues would place the revenue generation estimates in the $216 million to $231 million range depending on whether the Task Force or Crossroads revenue estimates are utilized. This scenario would place Crossroads at the bottom of the revenue generation models, a position any applicant should desire to avoid in a competitive licensing situation as is present here...
...However, in the comparative setting to which these licenses are subject, the Board finds that the economic benefit of Crossroads and Tropicana, given the smaller economic commitments, likely will not be as significant as the benefits which will occur by virtue of the larger commitments and the spin-off business associated therewith of the Mount Airy, Sands Bethworks and Pocono Manor projects. This again is a factor which the Board weighs in favor of those applicants...
...Opposition was strongest in relation to the proximity of the casino to the historic Gettysburg battlefield areas and the effect the casino would have on the traditionally rural nature of the community. Section 1102(10) of the Act instructs that “the public interest of the citizens of this Commonwealth and the social effect of gaming shall be taken into consideration in any decision or order made.” While the Board duly noted and considered the degree and proportion of public opposition, the Board’s decision was not based solely on this factor.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gettysburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Meet Gettysburg's two candidates for mayor Sun Davenport 1
News Gettysburg woman sprayed roommate with bleach,a May 18 Steve Gratman 3
News Gettysburg man charged with making child pornog... May 18 Steve Gratman 12
News Adams County Rescue Mission saves through faith (Feb '08) May 18 Steve Gratman 7
News You Can Now Buy Hillary Clinton's 1986 Oldsmobile May 17 Child Advocate 9
Poll Who is your favorite Topix Gettysburg poster? (Mar '14) May 17 Pink Eye 61
News Canadian police assist in Gettysburg arrest (Nov '15) May 16 Davenport 8
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Gettysburg Mortgages