Local & National Groups Oppose Proposed Casino in Gettysburg
By Deborah Fitts
July 2005
GETTYSBURG, Pa. - A proposal to build a casino near the Gettysburg battlefield has generated dismay among both local residents and preservationists at the national level
On April 26 a group of 10 investors unveiled plans to seek a casino license from the state to build their proposed Gettysburg Gaming Resort and Spa. The slot-machine facility would be located about a mile and a half east of Gettysburg National Military Park on a 42-acre tract at U.S. 30 and the U.S. 15 Bypass.
Pennsylvania law passed last July provides for 14 gambling licenses statewide. Of these, only two are available for facilities such as the one proposed for Gettysburg. (Of the rest, seven are earmarked for racetracks and two for existing resorts. Of the five “stand-alone” licenses, such as Gettysburg would need, two are promised to Philadelphia and one to Pittsburgh.)
The investors’ group, dubbed Chance Enterprises, is led by David LeVan, the wealthy former CEO of Conrail who has been a major philanthropist in the Gettysburg area. The property in question is owned by developer Robert Monahan Jr., who competed unsuccessfully several years ago to be named the builder of the battlefield park’s new museum and visitor center.
Local opposition to the Chance plan was swift. Susan Paddock heads a grassroots group “No Casino Gettysburg” that is rallying opponents and collecting petitions against the casino.
“I consider Gettysburg a national — really international — treasure,” said Paddock, a psychotherapist who lives with her husband on his family’s 130-acre farm on Fairfield Road. “This is a sacred shrine, a place of sacrifice of so many people. To take that history, and the place where President Lincoln gave his most beloved address, and even to take the name of Gettysburg and apply it to a casino, I find very offensive.”
Paddock said in one day outside a Gettysburg church, she and other casino opponents collected more than a thousand signatures against the proposal. She cited “incontrovertible evidence that when a casino goes in, family safety goes down.”
Last year 1.8 million tourists came to the battlefield, Paddock noted. “They come alone or with their families, and they like to wander around, see the battlefield and reflect on it in deep ways. They shop and do a lot for our community. And we’re going to trade them for people who come to play the slots and never go anywhere else.”
Nick Hays, spokesman for the new Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, said no applications are yet being received because regulations are still being drafted. “You’re taking a multi-billion-dollar industry and building it from scratch,” he explained.
Hays could not predict when applications for Category 2 sites like Gettysburg would even be considered, or how much competition Chance may face in seeking one of the two statewide stand-alone licenses. Each Category 2 site is allowed up to 5,000 slot machines.
The new gaming industry is expected to make $3 billion annually in gross profit, according to Hays. Of that, 53 percent will go to state programs, property tax relief and economic development. Under the formula, Straban Township, where the Monahan site is located, could receive up to 50 percent of its annual budget every year, or about $500,000.
The casino operators keep the remaining 47 percent, but they have to fund the Control Board and other state expenses. Also, the one-time cost of a casino license for Category 2 is $50 million.
The Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg’s board of directors recently adopted a statement opposing plans for the casino. Executive Director Dave Booz said: “Our mission is clear. We’re here to honor and protect Gettysburg, and that includes the perception people have of this special place. Gettysburg should be recognized for its important place in American history.”
A group of three dozen clergy and church leaders known as the Gettysburg Area Ministerium issued a statement in late May asserting that “legalized gambling corrupts the health and well-being of our community and its members.”
The statement continued, “We worship, live and work on ground hallowed by the sacrifice of those who bravely died in the cause of freedom. A gambling casino cheapens the memory and meaning of Gettysburg, not just for our community but for our nation.”
The group planned a candlelight vigil July 3 in Gettysburg Square.
A spokesman for Gettysburg National Military Park was quoted in the Gettysburg Times as saying the National Park Service has no position on the issue since the proposed site is not within park boundaries.
Dr. Bob Edgar, General Secretary, National Council of Churches USA, in a June 2 statement noted that one of the Council’s first policy statements more than 50 years ago opposed “innocent” forms of gambling because they “contribute to the weakening of the moral fiber of individuals and lower the moral tone of the community.”
Edgar said, “We would discourage casino construction anywhere, and feel that a casino at Gettysburg is doubly objectionable because it would detract from what should be a respectful and reflective atmosphere in this place where so many died.”
The Civil War Preservation Trust issued a statement saying Gettysburg was “such an inappropriate location for a casino it is hard to believe that the proposal is receiving serious consideration. Casinos can be built anywhere; land where thousands of Americans ‘gave the last full measure of devotion’ cannot be moved.”
Trust spokesman Jim Campi said the casino proposal “is a symptom of a larger issue, all the sprawl being generated around that interchange” — sprawl that threatens the battlefield to the west. He expressed concern about the proposed casino’s proximity to East Cavalry Field, and noted that the Trust “has invested considerable resources” in protecting portions of that part of the battlefield.
The Trust statement also pointed out that the battlefield has proved “a gold mine” in tourism dollars, pumping $121 million into the local economy last year alone. “It would be folly to flood that gold mine with a wave of inappropriate development,” the statement said.
Hays said the Gaming Control Board will provide a 60-day local comment period and hold a public forum in any community where a gambling facility is being proposed. But he said, “At the end of the process, it’s the board that makes the decisions.”
Paddock urged opponents of the casino plan to contact her group on its Web site, at www.nocasinogettysburg.com.
“We are fighting for the soul of our community,” she said. “We love history, we love our community. We want it to be the kind of place our children and our great-grandchildren can come and feel reverence for what happened here.”
