“The British redoubts remained til lately — one on the Delaware bank in a line with the stone-bridge street — then no houses were near it; now it is all built up, and streets are run where none were seen.”

Besides being a spokesperson for SugarHouse HSP Gaming, Leigh Whitaker is a lawyer.

“Professional standards. Section 112(a)(1)(A) of the act requires each Federal agency responsible for the protection of historic resources, including archaeological resources, to ensure that all actions taken by employees or contractors of the agency shall meet professional standards under regulations developed by the Secretary.” [36 CFR § 800.2.(a)(1)]

James Boyer is a biologist.

“The Nineteenth Century at the Subject Property. The Delaware Riverfront and East and West side of Penn Street between Marsh Street (Present-Day Ellen Street) and Shackamaxon Street.” 

WRONG. Marsh Street became Poplar Street, not Ellen Street. Marsh/Poplar Street is 450 feet south of Ellen Street.

Kratzer and Schopp are off by 450 feet. Yet another example of their poor research and mapping skills.

It is critical that Section 106, NEPA and all Clean Water Act decisionmaking undertaken by, and overseen by, the Army Corps be above reproach in all instances.  The Sugarhouse Casino development proposal is highly controversial and as a result even greater vigilance should be applied.  

I urge the Army Corps to take a step back, to sit with the Consulting Parties in conversation and to discuss the outstanding concerns that have been so often raised and documented, and yet so clearly ignored.  

From communications that have been circulated, other Consulting Parties clearly agree on the need for a meeting and discussion, including John Gallery of the Preservation Alliance who wrote: “the information is complex and the differing views are often difficult to understand and evaluate… It is difficult for us to evaluate the different points of view from these multiple emails….Given the lack of agreement, the Preservation Alliance would prefer that a meeting of all parties be held and that work on the site be halted until such a meeting and discussion can be occur.”   

As things stand, the Section 106 process and outcome is sorely in question and the Army Corps in our view cannot be said to have fulfilled its obligations including the one to “… ensure that a determination, finding, or agreement under the procedures in this subpart is supported by sufficient documentation to enable any reviewing parties to understand its basis” [36 CFR § 800.11].”

I respectfully request your consideration of these concerns and the need for an onsite meeting and discussion which is being requested by so many.  I urge you to halt all action on the Sugarhouse development project until this meeting and a final and informed decisionmaking process and outcome can be achieved.

Since moving to Kensington in 1983, I has been collecting and sharing the local history through articles, handouts, maps, books (“Kensington History: Stories & Memories” & “Workshop of the World Revisited”), and the website Workshop of the World—Philadelphia. 

I have given presentations at local libraries, churches, institutions, the Union League of Philadelphia (“The Elusive Thomas Dolan” and “Union Goods, illustrated stories of manufacturing by Union League members in Philadelphia during the Civil War (1861-1865)“), and recently at the McNeil Center for Early American Studies at the University of Pennsylvania (“Colonial History of Shackamaxon & Kensington, 1664-1777”). 

For years I have led tours of historic and industrial sites, including “Kensington & Frankford — Textiles, Metals & Beer“ for the Society for Industrial Archaeology National Conference (2007). 

In 1995, Ken Milano and Rich Remer started the Kensington History Project. This grew out of a collaboration with Harry Silcox, the former Principal of Lincoln High School, who asked us to work with middle and high school students plus senior citizens on an “intergenerational service learning project” focused on the history of Kensington. The result was edited by Harry Silcox and Jamie Catrambone and published as “Kensington History: Stories & Memories” (Brighton, 1996).

Ken, Rich and I continued with presentations at local libraries, institutions and in significant buildings, always encouraging neighbors to bring and share their mementos. These presentations have been well covered in the local Star newspaper since 1995. For years, Ken has researched and written the weekly “The Rest is History” column for the Star.

Our research on Kensington and outreach was published in “Pennsylvania Legacies, (Nov. 2002)” published by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Based upon all our research on Kensington at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Ken, Rich and I prepared the first finding guide to those resources, “Kensington: A Bibliographic Guide.”

All these activities definitively prove that Torben Jenk, Ken Milano and Rich Remer were interested in the history of Kensington long before gaming was proposed, and that interest will continue long after this Sugar House Section 106 process is over. 

During our extensive research, we did find historic references to the problem of gaming by the British Army during their occupation of Philadelphia, from John Jackson, With the British Army in Philadelphia 1777-1778 (Presidio 1979), p. 211-13:

“Ewald asserted that City Tavern was the largest of the gambling clubs; its bank always consisted of 1,000 guineas. Observers noted an ‘extravagant rage for play’ and believed that high-ranking officers encouraged young officers to gamble for high stakes, sums they could not afford to lose. Ewald said, ‘More than once I have seen 50,000 dollars change hands – where some made their fortune but many their ruin.’ Peebles visited the rooms and ‘saw much gambling going on as usual, a great deal of money lost & won this winter.’ Peebles, a small gambler, admitted playing dollar whist at the room and winning eight dollars. Colonel von Wurmb reported, ‘We have parties and gamble, whereby every night 700 and 800 pounds are lost and won.’ Apparently as a gesture, the bank permitted the players to win all the money on the table on the final night of play, 30 April. Peebles said the bank’s net winnings for the season were ₤7,000.

“The harmful effect of gambling on the British army was evidenced by the ruin of many officers. Deeply in debt as a result of their losses, they were forced to sell their commissions, usually to less qualified individuals. Ewald said, ‘Some even shot themselves out of desperation.’ Charles Stedman, a native Philadelphian and British officer with a deep-rooted prejudice against Howe, deplored the loss of numerous honorable officers who might have rendered great service to Great Britain.”

Because this gambling information does not relate to archaeological investigations at the SugarHouse site, it was not included in reports or correspondence.

 “The Scull and Heap map depicts buildings standing along and west of Point No Point Road near Gunnar’s Run. The building labeled “Hall” is Batchelor’s Hall, … Based upon a visual review of the Scull and Heap map, it appears the two men went to some trouble to provide a level of accuracy in the sketches of buildings they drew on their map. There are distinct differences among the the various buildings, suggesting an attempt at accurate portrayal of massing and detail as much as a sketch will permit.” (Judson Kratzer, Feb. 2008)

“Mr. Jenk’s comment infers that A.D. Marble failed to address this issue and completely ignored the possible historic presence of this structure. … The fact of the matter is that the possible historic presence of Bachelor’s Hall was addressed in the A.D. Marble reports, and that A.D. Marble performed subsurface investigation activities in the reported, possible former location of Bachelor’s Hall. No evidence of the former Bachelor’s Hall was found to be present on the subject Site.” (Terrence McKenna, May 6, 2008).

“Furthermore, while the Scull & Heap map may not be scalable, it seems highly unlikely that the two cartographers and surveyors from the city would incorrectly map the location of such an important Colonial Philadelphia building on the wrong side of the road.  Scull & Heap clearly depict the building west of present-day Delaware Avenue… An advertisement from the 14 July 1763 edition of The Pennsylvania Gazette appears to provide the best locational information about Batchelor’s Hall. Based upon A.D. Marble’s investigation the USACE can be comfortable that the former Batchelor’s Hall was not located on the SugarHouse Casino site.” (Terrence McKenna, Aug. 1, 2008).

One very good demonstration of the level of disregard that has marred the Section 106 process in this case can be found in the Keating Response to Comments dated May 6, 2008.  As articulated in my May 15, 2008 letter the opening 15 pages of the document is filled with inflammatory, accusatory, inappropriate and inaccurate statements and seeks to dismiss all comments provided by consulting parties rather than to, in a thoughtful and diligent way, consider, analyze and appropriately include them in the ongoing research and analysis.  The response to comment document spends tremendous time dismissing comments provided because the party involved has a position on the development of the site at issue – that is not an appropriate grounds for dismissing thoughtful and meaningful comment.  

Inappropriate behavior and inaccurate characterizations by the applicant of individuals and information involved in the consulting party process began very early on.  At the January 18, 2008, Consulting Party meeting Terrence McKenna cut off Torben Jenk with “Enough of the history lesson” and then followed up the attack in email communications.  At the time I responded in email on January 23, 2008 by stating: 

“For the record, I would like to state that Mr. Jenks was very appropriate at the meeting – he was informative and passionate and appropriately challenging.  He was forthcoming with information and rightly concerned when he felt that data to date, which had been provided, was not fully considered if considered at all.   I take umbrage with accusations to the contrary.   

“I felt very educated and appreciative of the tremendous time, energy and information he has been so willing to share with others.  It is inappropriate to try to dampen his participation in the public process by accusing him of any inappropriate behavior.  I am wary and concerned about communications that are clear attempts to erode public participation in the process by making it uncomfortable for folks to speak up and participate.  There was no participant at the meeting more forthcoming, informative or prepared than Mr. Jenks, he should be only applauded and thanked for his efforts.”

It does not appear from the perspective of this consulting party that the Army Corps has taken the steps it needs to ensure the process has maintained its openness and  integrity and that it has fulfilled the goals and obligations of the Section 106 process. 

In addition, it  seems that the Applicant and its own hired consultants were given tremendous independence and authority in conducting their “archaeological investigation” and in choosing to disregard the wealth of information being provided them by consulting parties.  Whether purposeful or not, the record documents that the applicants’ investigators clearly missed crucial historic evidence of past uses of the Sugarhouse Site including British Army Redoubt No. 1, Batchelors’ Hall and three centuries of industrial development along the ancestral edge of the Delaware River.  Only recently has the Army Corps assigned an archaeologist to this Sugarhouse Section 106 process but his approvals for the “removal of obstructions” and the current effort to close-out and complete a Memorandum of Agreement are not substantiated by any documentation.  The Army Corps has not conducted the kind of independent review and oversight upon which the law depends.

Once again, I want to go on record expressing concerns about implementation of the Section 106 process for the Sugarhouse Casino development. 

I do not believe that the consulting parties — nor the tremendous wealth of information, documents and resources that they have shared — have been fully embraced by the process, by the Army Corps or by the applicant as instructed by law. 

I am concerned that the dismissive and arms-length approach that has been applied in the case of Section 106 will continue throughout the Army Corps review of the Sugarhouse Casino development proposal undermining all required Army Corps reviews for the project.

Section 106 requires that the Army Corps seek information from consulting parties, and other individuals and organizations knowledgeable about and concerned about historic properties in the area, and that they identify issues relating to a project’s potential effects on historic properties.  The Army Corps is further instructed to review information on historic properties within the area of potential effects, including possible historic properties not yet identified.

While the Army Corps has provided a path for information to come forth from consulting parties, thus fulfilling their functional obligation under the law, it has not ensured a meaningful review to honor the intent of the regulations.  

It is the obligation of the Army Corps to ensure a thoughtful Section 106 process guided by integrity that fulfills and honors the specific requirements and goals as stated in the law.   From the record it is clear that the documentation, information and expert opinions delivered by the consulting parties in this 106 process have not received an appropriate level of analysis, consideration and use by the applicant and their designated experts.   It is the obligation of the Army Corps to remedy this and to ensure that the knowledgeable information and documentation brought to the process by those other than the applicant are appropriately embraced, considered, included and analyzed…

1. Daniel N. Bailey, “Principal Investigator,” wrote Marble’s Phase 1A Archaeological Survey Report (March 2007). Marble staff explained at the Sugar House Consulting Party meeting (Jan. 18, 2008) that Bailey left during the summer of 2007 “to lead a Christian Youth Group.” 
2. Richard Baublitz, “Principal Investigator,” wrote Marble’s Phase IB Management Summary Report (Oct. 2007).
3. Judson Kratzer, “Archaeologist/Principal Investigator,” wrote Marble’s Phase IB/II Archaeological Investigation (Feb. 2008) and Phase IB/II Supplemental Archaeological Survey, Geomorphological Assessment, and Report Clarification (June 2008).

These three Principal Investigators were consistently guided by the failed historical research of Marble’s consistent “Historian” during these Sugar House investigations, Paul Schopp.

This revolving-door of Principal Investigators — Bailey, Baublitz and Kratzer — has relied on inaccurate secondary sources, has continually made inaccurate assumptions and has provided contradictory information for the location of historic sites within the Sugar House Area of Potential Effect.

As an example of their twenty months of incompetence, Bailey, Baublitz, Kratzer and Schopp found:

NO maps of British Army Redoubt No. 1 (local historians provided ALL SIXTEEN)

NO manuscript maps, surveys, deeds, land patitions or road petitions for Batchelors’ Hall (local historians provided MORE THAN TEN)

NO maps or information on Masters Tide Mill (local historians provided TWO).