A Terry Maddona tweet says: Reliable sources in Harrisburg suggest that table games will be approved for Pa casinos as part of eventual budget deal.
I’ve argued for a long time that, if we are going to have gambling, we made a mistake by starting with slots. Table games have an appeal to members of the the professional–mangerial calss who can better afford to blow their money.
I’d prefer not to finance our government with gambling. But the residents of the city live with a high end casino–preferably one where you had to wear a Tux and drink your martinis shaken not stirred—much more easily than a slots parlor. I would think that a high end casino in the Strawbridge building would have relatively more appeal to tourists and well-off suburbanite than a slots parlor, which would appeal as well to the poor and working class in the city.
Now if solving the budget crisis requires table games, then how about we get the Philadelphia delegation to propose this deal: They’ll vote for table games only if
(1) the Strawbridge Casino be ONLY table games and no slots
(2) the Sugar House casino move to the airport. If, to get Pileggi’s support, we have make the Airport casino a slots parlor alone and let Chester Downs have both slots and table games, we could live with that as well. An airport location will also appeal relatively more to tourists and suburbanites than to city residents.
It’s not a perfect or ideal solution. I really would prefer that we have no slots machines anywhere in the state and none of them near my city. But getting slots off the waterfront and out of Center City would eliminate the worst elements of the two casinos that have been proposed for Philadelphia.