Skip to content
Opinion

DN Editorial: Brady's casino proposal a bad idea

REP. BOB BRADY is pitching an idea that the city take ownership of a second casino destined for Philadelphia. The city would operate a gambling joint and reap the profits, which would be bigger than the fees and benefits the city now gets from SugarHouse casino. Brady thinks it would bring $24 million to $40 million a year for schools.

    Published 

REP. BOB BRADY is pitching an idea that the city take ownership of a second casino destined for Philadelphia. The city would operate a gambling joint and reap the profits, which would be bigger than the fees and benefits the city now gets from SugarHouse casino. Brady thinks it would bring $24 million to $40 million a year for schools.

Brady should get credit for the kind of creative thinking that many call "out of the box." But this one should stay in the box.

The state deadline for license applications is Nov. 15, but in order for the city to get in the gaming business, it would have to put a referendum before voters, which couldn't happen for months. Brady argues that it will take months for the Gaming Control Board to review applicants, which may number six.

But should the city own a casino? We think not: It's one thing for government to benefit from sin- public coffers are enriched by taxes and/or fees on gambling, cigarettes, liquor and, in one state anyway, prostitution. It's quite another for government to own the factories that manufacture sin: Imagine the city of Roanoke, Va., opening a cigarette factory. Or the Lyon County, Nev., Municipal Brothel. If this idea spurs debate about city government's reach, so be it. But that's where it should end.