City Files for Reargument in SugarHouse Case

The City of Philadelphia asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court today to re-hear arguments in a recently decided case that ruled the city has power to convey state owned riparian lands beneath the Delaware River.

The petition claims the court ruled in favor of HSP Gaming on an issue that wasn’t included in oral arguments and in which no evidence was presented.

The court, in HSP Gaming v. City of Philadelphia, had ruled a 1907 law transferred the power to issue licenses for use of the land to the city. It ruled former Mayor John F. Street’s administration had the right to issue a license to HSP Gaming for the building of SugarHouse Casino and ruled Mayor Michael Nutter’s administration did not have the power to revoke that license because the casino owner’s relied on it.

In its application for re-argument, the city said that while it disagreed with the court’s finding that the power granted to the city in 1907 remained with the city, it respected the court’s thoughtful, lengthy analysis on that point.

The city instead argued that there was no evidence to prove HSP Gaming had an entitlement to or reliance on the license issued by the Street administration.

The court’s conclusion that HSP Gaming detrimentally relied on the license ignores the facts, the city argued, that there was no hearing or fact finding to provide evidence of its reliance and that a license issued in error is always revocable. The city also argued that a license granted by the state to use lands held in trust by the state for the public is inherently revocable.

“The General Assembly’s mandate to establish casino gaming throughout this commonwealth as expeditiously as possible should not mean that normal rules requiring parties to prove their cases by a preponderance of the evidence subject to cross-examination are simply to be discarded,” the petition argued. “Nor does it mean that century old case law is simply to be ignored; nor does it justify a radical rewriting of property and public lands law.”

In asking for re-argument, the city said the issue of its ability to revoke the license was “expressly excluded from the oral argument.”

The application was filed by City Solicitor Shelley R. Smith, law department attorney Mark R. Zecca and Pepper Hamilton attorneys Amy Ginensky, A. Michael Pratt, Robin P. Sumner and David V. Dzara.

~Gina Passarella, Senior Staff Reporter

Explore posts in the same categories: Casinos

2 Comments on “City Files for Reargument in SugarHouse Case”

  1. W. Harvey Says:

    The city is really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. They had no standing and still have no standing in this case. The city should move on and stop trying to continue unecessary delays in building this casino. There are many Philadelphia families that will benefit from many jobs here. In the end the cassino will be built and if philadephia politicians were smart, they would try to make a friend with Sugarhouse.

  2. Elizabeth Brotnitsky Says:

    W. Harvey can have the casino built in his neighborhood if he is concerned about the benefits the city will receive. When families are robbed, raped, broke from gambling, I don’t think ours “FRIENDS” will be there to help. I say DELAY< DELAY< DELAY!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: