More than 42 percent of Adams County residents who were polled favor a proposed casino near Gettysburg, while only about a third oppose the idea, according to a recent survey.
Also, of the 273-person random sample, about 22 percent said they have “no opinion” on businessman David LeVan’s proposal to convert a Cumberland Township hotel into a resort casino with 600 slots machines and 50 table games. The survey, conducted by The Evening Sun this past week, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.97 percent.
Just over 14 percent of residents surveyed said they “strongly favor” the proposal, while nearly 28 percent said they “favor” it. Slightly more than 13 percent said they “oppose” the proposal, while almost 22 percent said they “strongly oppose” a casino.
Residents who had an opinion were also asked to cite their “single most important reason” for their opposition to or support for the project. Their responses were then assigned to categories and tallied.
Of those who favored the project, about 85 percent cited the potential for jobs, tax relief or other economic benefits. About 10 percent said they were most influenced by the entertainment opportunities of a casino.
Opponents’ reasons were more diverse. Close to 33 percent said they object to the proposed casino’s proximity to the battlefield and historic Gettysburg. Slightly more than 24 percent said they had a moral objection to gambling, and about 22 percent cited social concerns such as crime, addiction and the possible financial impact on families. Nearly 12 percent of those opposed said they believed a casino is a poor fit for the area.
Public opinion is a factor likely to influence the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board if and when it considers LeVan’s application for a Category 3 “resort” license. LeVan has not yet filed an application, but he and business partner Joseph Lashinger have vowed to do so before the April 7 deadline.
LeVan lost his first bid for a casino license in 2006 – partly due to the arguments of a grassroots opposition group that drew national support and attention to the issue. No Casino Gettysburg relied most heavily on the belief that a casino in Straban Township would desecrate the nearby battlefield – what they consider hallowed ground.
With that history in mind, LeVan spokesman David La Torre said Friday that the results of the survey are good news for the businessman’s resort-casino project.
“We believe and have believed all along that a large majority of Adams County residents support this project,” La Torre said. “This survey certainly backs that belief and hopefully will help us make our case to state regulators.”
La Torre called the results evidence that only a “small minority” oppose the project because of its proximity to the battlefield and historical town. The Eisenhower Hotel and Conference Center, the project’s proposed site, is located less than a mile from the southern boundary of the battlefield and five miles from downtown Gettysburg.
“Obviously, there are going to be people who are against gaming on moral grounds. And we respect that,” La Torre said. “But the fact is gaming is now legal in Pennsylvania. If you set aside those respondents, and consider those who have no opinion, it is clear that there is a small minority who oppose this project due to the battlefield or other factors.”
Minority or not, the head of No Casino Gettysburg said Friday that she believes the opposition to LeVan’s proposal is still relevant and that the survey reveals a “significant divide” among residents on the issue.
Susan Star Paddock said she believes Adams County residents are reacting strongly to a LeVan-backed public- relations campaign that has focused all attention on potential benefits of a casino.
“I think that people are responding to the pro-casino data,” she said. “We had been waiting for more information on the application itself so that we could really study the details.”
In the coming weeks and months, No Casino Gettysburg intends to provide the other side of the story, she said. Paddock said the group will host a public meeting at 7 p.m. on Thursday, Feb. 18 at the Gettysburg Fire Department to do just that.
“People haven’t gotten the facts yet. LeVan’s people have been good at getting out their point of view,” she said. “We are gathering data now and trying to do some research and are hoping that by our meeting on Feb. 18, we can present some solid, local research.”
Asked about the effects of the recession on public opinion, Paddock said residents should be more worried about the potential for a casino to divert money away from other area businesses.
“I think that the economy scares people, and when people are scared they may tend to look for immediate gratification and kind of pie-in-the-sky solutions. This casino is definitely a pie-in-the-sky solution to individual, township, county and statewide economic problems,” she said.
To a group like Pro Casino Adams County, however, LeVan’s casino proposal could be the solution for a lot of local people – particularly those who are out of work. Adams County’s unemployment rate is at about 8 percent.
Group spokesman Tommy Gilbert said he was not surprised by the results of the survey.
“We at Pro Casino have often said that if they put it on a ballot that it would win hands-down. And this obviously shows that,” he said.
Gilbert also said he believes the number of those who oppose the casino proposal on moral grounds – about 24 percent of all opponents, according to the survey – further weakens the Gettysburg anti-casino movement.
Pro Casino Adams County was also active during LeVan’s 2005-06 bid for a casino license, but the group has been much more active this time around. Its leaders have said they want the Gaming Control Board to hear the project’s supporters as much as they heard its opponents in 2006.
After rejecting LeVan’s first proposal in December 2006, the gaming board released a 114-page opinion explaining its reasons. The board cited two main reasons for its decision.
One was the strong possibility that Maryland would soon legalize slots and therefore reduce the number of gamblers traveling to Pennsylvania.
The other was the intensity of the anti-casino movement, which extended across the country but originated in Adams County. Paddock successfully gained the attention of preservationists, educators, historians and many others connected to Gettysburg by focusing on the proposed casino’s close proximity to the battlefield. Gambling so close to hallowed ground would desecrate the memories of the men who died there, she and her supporters argued.
Statewide surveys conducted in 2005 and 2006 by Mason Dixon Polling and Research indicated more than 60 percent of Pennsylvanians opposed a casino near Gettysburg. Even Gov. Ed Rendell – a major proponent of gaming since its legalization in 2004 – had publicly stated his opposition to a casino near Gettysburg.
“I think the (gaming) board listened to the community,” Rendell said soon after the 2006 decision.
The 2004 slots law charged the gaming board with choosing “suitable” casinos. Public reaction and economic impact are among the factors the board is supposed to consider, along with financial viability, highway access, diversity goals and plans for handling compulsive gambling.
Arguments in 2005-06 were often characterized by doubts that regulations could adequately achieve those goals.
But, La Torre said, this new survey shows a public confidence in Pennsylvania casino operators and regulators.
“I think it shows that there is not as much interest and concern as there was in 2006 because people now have the facts about our state gaming industry,” La Torre said. “What they have seen is thousands of jobs created, millions of dollars for local economic-development projects and concerns for crime that have never been realized.”
Copyright © 2010 – The Evening Sun
