Make your best argument against SugarHouse.

dan's picture

Whether you're in favor or against, what's the best argument you know of against building SugarHouse?

dan's picture

the best argument is that

the best argument is that the potential economic benefit will be outweighed by the economic negatives - increased costs to government, businesses, and individuals... along with a decrease in quality of life for many

workerbee's picture



workerbee's picture

I own property in the county

I own property in the county where the first casino opened.

Taxes are increasing in Luzerne County, counter to what we have been told.

If you have been to Atlantic City or Las Vegas, the areas just a few blocks around the gaming area is a slum ... at best.

The Pocono casiNO is owned by a known felon, who started rehabbing before the gaming commission was announced.

Larry99's picture

more 'shady' people

more 'shady' people wandering the neighborhood
increased traffic on the main roads
a big ugly box on the waterfront

Ftown66's picture

1-They actually don't

1-They actually don't produce sugar.
2-To much sugar can cause diabetes and in this case debt also.

kdubs215's picture

workerbee - its was slum

workerbee - its was slum before the casinos ... the casinos have nothing to do with the blight . Fishtown wont turn into north philly because of the casinos

PattiMey's picture

Increase in crime on the

Increase in crime on the streets. More muggings. Every slimeball for miles will be walking our river front looking for victims. Increase in trafiic. Streetwalkers galore. More pawn shops and massage parlors. Increase in suicides and depression. Increase in home thefts.

michaellouis's picture

If you really want to create

If you really want to create jobs and build a better economy, it should be done where there is a tangible and/or cultural positive growth associated to the economic growth. Casinos don't create anything positive besides jobs. I'm not arguing at all about the negatives it could bring into the neighborhood at all (lets just ignore those for a second). I'm just saying that it doesn't offer anything positive other than bring in these perspective jobs. Even though casinos can be put under the broader umbrella of entertainment, most other forms of entertainment have some sort of cultural positive associated to it (movies, music, theater and even sports). Casinos don't have this. Almost every other way we could create positive economic development would have a much more positive impact on the city because it would create more than just some jobs.

This was an argument explained to me by an economist and it's the one that actually really got to me. I don't like the pro to con argument about the economic benefit to economic negative because numbers like that can be made to prove a point and I rarely see someone that is completely unbiased make the pro-con argument convincing.

cosmo's picture

the simple fact that there

the simple fact that there ARE negatives (let alone a good amount of serious negatives) should be enough for people to be nervous about bringing the slots so close to our neighborhood (and into the city). Either side (pro or con) can skew statistics and spin reports from other cities in their favor to make their case. With something like gambling, everyone should slow down and be very cautious. it's like saying: "you know what, I know this car has a cracked engine block, but I'm going to buy it anyway because it's get me from point A to point B right now. besides, what are the chances that something goes wrong?"

Otherwise, build the shops and restaurants sans slots and you have an attraction similar to the Inner Harbor in Baltimore. That appears to be successful AND provides jobs.