From The Morning Call

As Bethlehem debates potential gambling, keep in mind what actually is at stake

August 24, 2005

The Bethlehem Planning Commission will meet this afternoon to listen to the public regarding a proposed slot machine casino on former Bethlehem Steel land on the South Side. Specifically, the commission is considering a change to zoning laws that would prohibit such a thing from being built. It will be an important and emotional meeting in the big auditorium in Lehigh University's Packard laboratory.

As much as the casino proposal has divided the city — and it has — Bethlehem's style of public discourse always has been based on civility. We expect that to continue today. But everyone must keep in clear focus what exactly is at stake at this meeting, and in proceedings before City Council later. The startling truth is — maybe, not much.

We don't mean that the impact of a large gambling and entertainment complex would be inconsequential. Rather, the eventual presence of a slots casino in Bethlehem is most likely going to be determined outside of Bethlehem. Two scenarios are pertinent.

The first is that a total of two slots licenses statewide are in contention. Las Vegas Sands Corp. has as good a chance as any applicant to get one for Bethlehem, but the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board won't make a decision until next year. Opponents of gambling, of course, would be foolish to depend on the board turning down the Sands. Still, the license could go elsewhere in the Lehigh Valley, or even far away.

A more formidable issue is the Legislature's intention to take away from Bethlehem the power to prevent a casino through zoning laws. That was the original intent when it passed Act 71 to legalize slot machines. The state Supreme Court struck that section of the slots law in March, but the justices handed the Legislature a playbook for putting the provision back into the law. Such legislation already has been introduced, and it is likely to pass this fall. The Supreme Court said that as long as a revised law includes guidelines for the board to evaluate land-use decisions, it will pass constitutional muster.

The most that the Supreme Court offered municipalities that might not want a slots parlor is that the Gaming Board can take restrictive zoning into consideration in awarding a license. We think the board will rely more heavily on the viability of an applicant's proposal and its ability to pass background and ethics reviews. (And, of course, political influence will not play a role.) But it is clear that, between the justices and legislators, the original intent will remain intact: Local opposition will not be able to prevent a statewide initiative from going forward.

There could be other legal flaws in the proposal, having to do with a municipality's ability to ''zone out'' a legal enterprise. Next, four other council members are undecided. Mayor John Callahan could veto an anti-casino law, creating an even higher hurdle of a veto-override. It's all healthy soul-searching for Bethlehem.

We think Bethlehem Works and the allied casino-related plans are legitimate economic development. The same heritage that slots opponents say is incompatible with gambling would enable the city to cope with gambling , while enabling it to reap its clear benefits, if a license comes here.