Where Updates End and Exaggeration Begins

As the months lead up to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board’s final decision as to who is granted the 14, highly sought after casino gambling licenses, the current applicants are allowed to frequently update and change their original applications. 

The objective is to get the most well-rounded and fair assessment of each proposed casino project.  However, recent concerns have risen that such an unusual process will lead to applicants augmenting or even exaggerating applications for the sake of competition.

Representative Paul Clymer of Bucks County (R) protests, “If this is how they are handling it, it invalidates the whole process.”  Clymer has never supported the idea of legalized gambling, but is concerned about the objectivity of the process.  “If they are just going to let them change their information after they’ve seen their competitor’s applications, then we can’t trust any of these numbers.”

The original application deadline for the casino operators competing for the 14 gambling licenses was December 28, 2005.   Claiming one of the 14 licenses to be issued statewide, is the only way casino operators will really be able to get a good chunk out of the slot machine industry that is about to explode in Pennsylvania. 

Every casino hopeful has released a local impact statement to each community in which they have proposed to build their casino projects.   Many of those towns and cities have made these impact statements public knowledge to their citizens, giving applicants the opportunity to observe revenue projections of competitors. 

Evidence of a bidding war has already surfaced as Pocono Manor in Monroe County declared plans for a temporary casino immediately after learning Mount Airy Lodge, a Pocono competitor, had squared away a number of permits putting them in a position to break ground as early as May.  Pocono Manor has even made revisions to its revenue projections.  The new projections are a lot closer to the highest numbers made public. 

The director of communications for the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, Nick Hays, says the gaming control board sees the applications as a “work in progress.”  Hays stands by the process, “It is our job to help make sure each of these applicants have a complete application. We're going to have questions, and we're going to give them the opportunity to update their information.”  Hays would not expand on to what extent applicants will be permitted to make updates. 

Casino operators, too, have made private complaints about the application process, mainly its lack of uniformity.  The examples are numerous.  Though Pocono Manor and Mount Airy Lodge have filed comparative impact statements, both spanning thousands of pages in length, Mount Airy did not include projected revenues.  Aztar Corp., released its 38-page impact statement to Allentown.  The statement was not intended to be released to the public, but it was leaked to The Morning Call.  It included revenue figures, but lacked a traffic study.  The Las Vegas Sands released a statement to Bethlehem that spread across hundreds of pages. 

Rep. Clymer has expressed further dissatisfaction with this seemingly disorganized process, “This reflects a process that appears rushed and disorganized.  They want to issue licenses this fall, and right now, it doesn’t seem like [board members] know what they are doing.”

Senator Lisa Boscola of Northampton (D) agrees that the process is in danger of abuse, but places her trust in the competence of the gaming control board.  ''I'm assuming that everyone who applies will exaggerate their numbers, the way most people exaggerate on their resumes,'' Boscola said. ''I'm counting on the gaming board to sort out what's real and what's false. I'm hoping they are up to the task.''

+ Return to Max Jordan Reports...