All right, then. 192 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Thank you, Councilman.
And just a last question: And at those hearings that you talked about, the two hearings the Planning Commission had, is it fair to say that the residents of the community that expressed their opinion were opposed to it? Is that a fair --
Yes. There -- there -- there were very -- there was a large attendance at both of those meetings. We heard opinions from both sides.
So there was some support from the community there? On Foxwoods now; I'm just talking about Foxwoods.
There was some support? 193 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
Who? See, I think I know who; I'm just trying to get it on the record here. I just would like to get it on the record.
All right, okay. Again, we're -- as the Councilman said, we're just trying to get it on the record who --
To answer you specifically as to who, we would have to check the minutes of the meeting. I personally was not at that one but my staff advises me that there were people there in support.
Okay. I just wanted to be clear. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. 194 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
You're welcome. Councilman DiCicco, do you have any further questions? (No further questions.)
Today is Police Athletic League Day at City Hall. I want to welcome to City Council Miss Miller, who is a 15-year-old sophomore at the Commonwealth Connections Academy High School, and she is participating with us as the Council President for the day. So we welcome you. (Applause.)
She did ask if she could ask a question, and I'm giving her the opportunity to do so. I don't know what she's going to ask. (Laughter.) MISS MILLER: I would like to know, how does the -- with the casinos 195 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 being in the neighborhood of Philadelphia, how does it benefit the community? (Applause.)
It benefits the community in terms of construction jobs initially, jobs in a variety of services when the gaming facility is up and operating. We're certainly hopeful that there will be spin-off economic benefits in the surrounding areas. MISS MILLER: But is that a guarantee that it will help the community, or is it just hopeful?
Well, it's a projection, it's a projection. And if a facility exists at that point, it will -- you know, they'll have to have employees, there will be people employed there. But many of the benefits in terms of number of jobs and tax revenues that might be generated as a 196 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 result -- MISS MILLER: Where do you see the money going to?
-- are projected. MISS MILLER: Where do you see the money going to? If you are to give money to Philadelphia, where do you see the money going to?
Part of the -- part of the provision of the State legislation mandates that -- or I don't know if it mandates, but it would take casino revenues and apply them to wage-tax reductions in the City of Philadelphia. MISS MILLER: Oh, okay. I'm just asking because, like, I don't see -- in my personal mind, I don't see the purpose of a casino other than to give, like, for a person to give their money away. (Applause.) MISS MILLER: And I would like 197 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 to know the benefits of having a casino in such a city as Philadelphia, where we already have violence, we already have craziness, and I just wanted to know the benefits of having a casino in Philadelphia.
Thank you, Miss Miller. Thank you. She's going to go far. (Applause.)
Okay. We're going to recess until 1:30 so that everybody could get a cup of coffee or... So we'll be back here at 1:30. Thank you. (Lunch break taken.) (Proceedings resume.)
Our next witnesses will be the Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance. Are they here? (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, gentlemen. Please identify 198 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indiscernible.) (No immediate response.)
I beg your pardon? Who's going to testify. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The four of us, but we have a four-minute very brief video presentation, which they're setting up now.
Would the representatives of Foxwoods prefer to wait until the other witnesses have completed their testimony? It's not a very long list.
So that you could hear what the concerns of the communities are? 199 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
Okay, thank you. ) RHINEHARDT: My name is Mary Rhinehardt and I live on the 100 block of Manton Street in Pennsport, South Philadelphia. I'm speaking to you because the State passed legislation in two casinos in Philadelphia in the middle of the night, without any public hearings. Two years later, using a flawed process, the Gaming Board selected the two riverfront sites. To ensure do not irrevocably harm Philadelphia's future, the Philadelphia City Council must not approve a Casino Entertainment District on a site that does not work. ) WOODCOCK: I believe that you would want -- you would want to pick -- there are sites on the waterfront that, when we have looked at the different locations that are more suitable because you can allow the traffic to go directly into the casino, they are also farthest away from the neighborhood. DiCICCO: Would Foxwoods be a site? WOODCOCK: No. 16 DiCICCO: Would SugarHouse really be a site? WOODCOCK: Um, that's -- that's closer to the neighborhood, so on the criteria of proximity to neighborhoods, that site -- which we have already noted in the work that we did to evaluate the five sites -- was not ideal for that reason. DiCICCO: Thank you. ) RHINEHARDT: The Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance is not anti-casino; we are dedicated to preserving neighborhoods. Neighborhood associations throughout Philadelphia have joined PNA because they agree with Miss Woodcock: The Foxwoods site doesn't work as a site for a new casino. The Foxwoods Casino would sit just 490 feet from churches, residential homes, children's playgrounds, and historic sites like Old Swedes Church. Fifty-five thousand residents live near the proposed casino. More people live within one mile of this site than in all of Atlantic City. The Foxwoods site won't work for the neighborhoods of South Philadelphia. Studies show gambling increases crime, gambling 202 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 leads to increased violence, and gambling addition breeds social problems, including increased suicides. The closer casinos are to neighborhoods, the more collateral damage will be done to our community. ) GOODMAN: Every study shows this: The closer you locate a casino to a population, the more problem gamblers you will have. And I will give you very long odds on any bet you want to take that the closer you locate a casino to people, the more gambling you'll have. So you're experimenting here in a way that I've never seen a city experiment. If you put casinos within 200 feet, you will have the best experiment in the country for how it could impact a 203 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 community. No other city has what you have. ) RHINEHARDT: Foxwoods won't work because it will bring too much traffic to an already clogged business artery, choking off access to the Port of Philadelphia and other retail businesses. Drivers who have been drinking at the casino will be a hazard on our neighborhood streets. The Foxwoods site won't work for the developers. ) MACK: Hi. I'm Chris Mack. I live on the 1400 block of South Tenth Street, and I'm here to say that there's a better plan for the Foxwoods site. It was developed as a result of 204 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 a community process led by PennPraxis. Everyone who has seen the plan to extend the city grid to the riverfront is excited by the possibilities and knows it is the right plan for Philadelphia's riverfront. We can have casinos and preserve neighborhoods. For the future of Philadelphia, we can find other sites that provide a buffer from existing neighborhoods, sites where traffic won't be snarled and where any neighborhood harm can be mitigated. Those sites do exist, and both casinos could be located where there are more compatible and existing infrastructure. Philadelphia used to be known for its world-class city planning. We can reearn that reputation when the Council concludes that the Foxwoods site isn't right for a casino and supports re-siting. )
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of Council, fellow members of Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance, other fight-to-re-site casino persons, and other guests. We come here today to urge members of Council to vote no on this legislation and to consider instead the value of working to re-site both casinos. My name is Reen Goodwin. I live in the Pennsport community. I live approximately a block and a half from the intersection of Columbus Boulevard and Washington Avenue and approximately three blocks from the proposed Foxwoods site. Our comments today, and in subsequent hearings, the comments of my fellow PNA members, will provide 206 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 you with what we believe will be compelling testimony to support our request. The proposed legislation contains eight conditions which are to be met before zoning is granted to the applicant. We will convince you that the conditions cannot be met, at least not to a degree that is reasonable, satisfactory, or that will ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the public, particularly, but not only, the residents of the five or so mile stretch along the Delaware River. We will show you that on traffic public safety, mitigation cannot be satisfactorily achieved. Economically speaking, this plan is ill-conceived at the present site. As stated earlier, there are already in existence a significant amount of jobs that generate enough revenue for people to honestly raise family; and as the port expands, that 207 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 will increase. By the way, I want to also mention here that the ILA membership is made up of approximately 60 percent of minority populations. There is also the issues of tax settlement, easements, and right-of-way to be considered. As to riparian rights, well, they don't have them. It's also clear that adequate studies on traffic and economics are sorely lacking. But today's testimony is to focus specifically on two of issues: the plan of development and a Special Services District. So let's talk for a moment about the plan of development. My question is: Which one shall we talk of? I submit to you a comparison that we have done of the two plans of development that have been submitted to date -- one submitted to the 208 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board and the other submitted to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. They were both approved. One got them a license and one was approved by the Planning Commission, but the plans are different. How can we be sitting here today to consider CED legislation on plans that are significantly different. The plan submitted to the Pennsylvania Control Board called for a three-phase plan and, based on that, revenue projections were made. The plan approved by the City Planning Commission is for Phase I only. One might very well conclude that the difference in the POD would equate to a difference in the M-O-N-E-Y it renders. At the September 11th hearing in Philadelphia before the Pennsylvania House Gaming Oversight Committee, representatives of the 209 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Philadelphia Entertainment Development Partners could not seem to agree on how large the parcel is on which they intend to build. And there is that nagging issue of lack of site control. So, members of Council, I ask you: Is it really the most prudent course of action, and are you practicing due diligence by approving CED legislation for a development that doesn't know how large its parcel is, hasn't quite figured out once and for all what's its POD, and is and doesn't have site control. Again, we urge you to vote against this bill and, instead, encourage the developer to re-site the project.
By the way, I just wanted to add as footnotes that the issue of the charitable contribution through the charitable trust is an interesting issue, particularly on surface value, 210 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 but when one explores it, one also realizes that it is a superb way of protecting one's wealth. Tasker Street, by the way, gentlemen from the Planning Commission, is not Tasker Avenue; I think it's time you learned that correctly. And there was actually a meeting with Foxwoods -- well, it was a presentation, and it was held Tuesday evening, a cold Tuesday evening, February 28, 2006, at the Wecoco playground. It was a meeting at which we were called together -- members of Society Hill, Queen Village, Pennsport, people that I had never met most them at that time. And at that time, it was a presentation, and the plans for the Phase III build-out were presented to us. It was from that on -- and I'm celebrating my two-year anniversary -- that it became clear to every one of 211 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 us in the room from communities that this was an inappropriate site for this development. And to point it to you, to make it a personal issue, I ask you to look at the rendering of the high towers and the bright lights, and you consider that I-95, elevated I-95, is not more than about 40 feet high. Those structures are considerably higher than that. In fact, in one of the phases, it calls for -- if it goes to Phase II and III -- a 500-foot high structure, which is 27 feet shorter than Billy Penn's hat. And it also means that if you take the average rowhome of 35 feet in height, you would have to stack one on top of the other and get 14 of them to achieve that 500-foot height. Thank you so much for giving us this opportunity. We remain at your disposal for anything we can do.
Thank 212 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 you. MR. de WYNGAERT: Good afternoon, Madam President --
Good afternoon. MR. de WYNGAERT: -- and the other members of Council. I'd like to thank City Council for giving me the opportunity to testify and register my opposition to any legislation enabling Foxwoods to operate a casino at the site currently under consideration. My name is Richard de Wyngaert, and I am the president of Society Hill Civic Association. Let me begin my testimony by underscoring that the residents of Society Hill are adamantly opposed to the locations currently identified as the sites for the two casinos. Society Hill is a beautiful and historic history community that is an essential piece of Philadelphia's 213 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 history and its future. Dedicated stewards of Society Hill have worked for decades to create a unique treasure in a thriving community important to attracting and retaining urban residents as well as providing a unique and interesting tourist destination, the revenue from which would be severely ruptured by the existence of proximate casinos. Society Hill is a village within a larger city. The possibility of a Foxwoods casino approximating on Columbus Avenue and Reed Street is an abominable thought, one which is at odds, thoroughly at odds, with prudent stewardship of the City's future. The riverfront and a thriving community with the nationally historic and architectural significance of Society Hill should not be compromised for casinos that would generate as much or more revenue for the State with fewer social costs if they were 214 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 relocated away from densely populated neighborhoods. It is the deep commitment of Philadelphians and communities such as ours that constitutes the bedrock upon which this city's future health and prosperity rests, not waterfront slot parlors, from which I anticipate no 10 economic spinoff, as referenced earlier. The quality of life we have established for our families will be under siege. The exponential increase in traffic will profoundly girdle, if not choke, our access to existing businesses. A bleak landscape characterized by 24/7 alcohol consumption, gambling and other additions, insurmountable debts, bankruptcies and all the associated crimes is a frightening reality to which our community would be exposed for you to permit casinos to operate so close to our neighborhoods and our 215 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 families. What's worse: This is entirely unnecessary given the other site options. We do not oppose gambling or casinos for the city or the State; we oppose their current locations. We all know that a community's proximity to casinos and gambling renders that community much more vulnerable to all of gambling's costs, which is why no other American city has placed casinos so close to existing neighborhoods. Does Philadelphia really want to be the first? The risks and the sacrifice with which the Foxwoods site would saddle our communities is absolutely unconscionable. The officials we have elected to represent our interests and protect our communities must oppose any legislation or actions that threatens, rather than strengthens, 216 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 the fabric of our communities and eliminates the possibility of sound waterfront development. Both of these are the fundamental building blocks if Philadelphia is going to leverage its rich history and create a great future. Furthermore, if we are not going to consider, as Reen cited, all stages of the Foxwoods development when evaluating site control, whether site control is adequate, then we can no longer accept the revenue projections based on the multiple-stage development from which the City and State would derive revenue. And if we cannot rely on these figures because the scope of development site control is in dispute, then how can we consider risking our neighborhoods, our communities, and our city's future?
How can we jeopardize, squander our 217 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 waterfront, which is potentially one of our greatest urban assets, as an as-yet undeveloped gateway to 21st century greatness by opting for a 20th century business model that cannibalizes existing vitality and undermines severely the potential development of our waterfront. If our State government insists on casinos, please move the casinos to an area which would minimize the cost to any Philadelphia community. Do not allow them to operate near thriving communities, where the most profoundly disabling costs can, quite honestly, never be quantified, let alone mitigated. Thank you. )
Good afternoon. 218 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
They gave me the short chair, I apologize. My name is Jim Penza, and I'm the secretary of the Whitman Council, and I would like to thank Council for the opportunity to speak here this afternoon. With apologies to President Verna and Councilman DiCicco, I would like to talk a little bit about Whitman, and you folks probably know as much about Whitman or more than I do, so please bear with me as I talk about Whitman and its relationship to the river. Whitman and, to a certain extent, our neighbor Pennsport are truly working-class, blue-collar communities. While more and more of our children choose to go to college, a great many still decide to go to work right out of high school, and a great many of those going to work out of high school are going to work on 219 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 the river. It seems that everyone at Whitman and Pennsport knows a longshoreman. If the person you know isn't working on the river themselves, then their brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins are. The river, up until about 30 years ago, has been a great neighbor to us. It has provided many families with life-sustaining wages and health benefits. However, over the last 30 years, things have changed for the worse. Jobs began to disappear as neighboring port cities like Baltimore, Wilmington, and New York made substantial investments in their port infrastructure and the ships left Philadelphia for these ports. Larger ships began being built, and the Delaware River cannot accommodate them. Thriving chemical plants like (indiscernible) Industries 220 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 shut down and became EPA Superfund sites. Other thriving industries moved south to take advantage of opportunities in a larger population. Haphazard development and big-box stores have brought traffic nightmares, sewage problems, flooding problems, and trash. And now, it seems that the vice industry has become the development of choice for the 21st century. In addition to the proposed Foxwoods slot parlor, there are four strip clubs in Whitman and Pennsport, with a fifth possibly on the way. But all this can change. While I don't claim to be an expert on the port, I believe we are close to what I would call a perfect storm situation. An agreement was reached to dredge the river, allowing larger ships to enter our port. The ports in the cities I mentioned above are a capacity, and 221 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 there's nowhere for the increasing number of imports to go, nowhere except Philadelphia. A new administration in Philadelphia is looking long-term and weighing what is best for all Philadelphia residents, and we currently have available space along the river to expand and develop. And things have already started happening Piers 38 and 40, off of Christian Street, continue to move a substantial amount of imported paper products. Pier 78 and 80, off of Snyder Avenue, have already begun expanding to give these ports additional capability to handle additional paper products. It should be noted that all four of these piers are within a half a mile of the proposed CED area. Also, all four of these piers also move their products by rail cars, rail cars that stage right in front of the 222 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 proposed Foxwoods site at night -- a true recipe for disaster. For the first time in a long time, international businesses are contacting our city and state to invest in the shipping industry. And this June, plans to open the building process to develop the Philadelphia south board tract, a state-of-the-art container facility that will occupy 120 acres south of the Walt Whitman Bridge. And, most importantly, this development will be paid for using mostly private funds, and it promises to be a catalyst that will spur increasing development. As I said previously, Whitman is a working-class neighborhood dealing with many of the problems that plague all of our cities and all of our neighborhoods.
Four of our last six community meetings have featured visits by police and other City 223 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 agencies trying to address issues like crime, violence, vandalism, and underaged drinking. Casinos will do nothing but add to our already increasing problems. A community benefits agreement is not the answer. You good people know better than anyone that just throwing money at a problem does not guarantee that you will solve it. And for some problems, like the ones that casinos will bring, there will never be enough money to address these issues. Instead, I believe a well- thought-out long-term plan, with long-term benefits, is the answer. Good-paying jobs with good benefits and minimal social impacts are the answer. Building up our port infrastructure is the answer. I'd like to close by that thanking each of you for sharing your time and hearing our concerns. I'll 224 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 leave you with a thought that is shared with me every time I speak to a neighbor about the casino issue. They ask me to remember that you can build a slot parlor anywhere, but you can only load a ship along a river. Thank you. )
-- and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Jeff Rush, and I am president of the Queen Village Neighborhood Association and a charter member of the Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance. As you know, we've come into Council chambers numerous times in the last year to testify on casino-related matters, and I'd like to take a moment to thank Council for its unwavering, and often unanimous, support for neighborhoods. 225 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 I'd especially like to thank Councilman DiCicco for his leadership on issues we consider vital to the 1st District, often at his own personal expense and sacrifice. Foxwoods presented a full-site development plan to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Commission -- Board for the award of a license, and they got their license. Then Foxwoods presented a different plan to the City Planning Commission, which was approved. Now, this morning, we've heard what appears to be another rendition of Foxwoods' plan of development. Which one of these plans does Foxwoods wish Council to endorse? One thing is clear: With the passage of this ordinance, Foxwoods would be granted zoning for only a portion of the plan submitted to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. So what is it that we, the people that are most directly affected by their 226 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 ever-changing plan, expect to see actually built? Mayor Nutter was clear that the consideration was only to be given to a uniform presentation. The zoning proposed by this legislation must never be issued until Foxwoods' plans are all unified and approved, starting the process back with the Planning Commission, not to mention of the PGCB. When Foxwoods made application to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board for its site license, Foxwoods made certain representations to satisfy their requirements that the site and its plan was superior to the others being considered, both in terms of its financial potential and that the applying entity had complete site control, which would enable the best end-product and the highest financial reward to the citizens of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth. First of all, the Foxwoods 227 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 partnership does not own the site at 1499 Columbus Boulevard; actually, it's owned by Philadelphia Roman Properties, which is care of Bally's Casino in Atlantic City. They do not have approvals for certain right-of-ways, nor do they have riparian rights, whether they say they need them or not. Clearly, they do not have anything like complete site control, a point mentioned by other delegates. Their application is, quite frankly, inferior to the others that were rejected that actually met the Gaming Control Board's requirements. In fact, the license should be withdrawn and the selection process reopened. I'd also like to make the following additional points. Casinos should be placed where they optimize the opportunity of collecting tourist and visitor revenues, not near communities to compete with local 228 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 entertainment enterprise while fouling local streets with unwanted traffic and police enforcement problems. Casinos can work anyplace in the City with vehicle access and open space. The waterfront is not the place for a casino. There are higher and better uses for waterfront land. You know, people often point to the inevitability of casino placement on the river since Ed Rendell proposed riverboat casinos in the early '90s. Waterfront development is no longer stagnant; it is actually blocked by casino land-banking. This project, if approved, will interfere port development, as mentioned, and terminate the potential for waterfront growth such as that envisioned by PennPraxis. Casino placement at this location will artificially stop gentrification expansion to the south or port 229 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 expansion to the north as the market may demand.
The Foxwoods plan of development proposed for consideration is for Phase I only because there are no adequate foreseeable mitigation solutions for subsequent phases. The PNA strenuously opposes the passage of this zoning bill for this site because passage of the zoning requested would be based on review of only half of the project's impacts. The gambling license is not a property right; the license is a privilege, and the licensee has the right to request to relocate it. The point is to generate revenue, not give a property right to a licensee. If this site is not the best, the licensee can relocate to a better site to generate revenue. What's in the best interest of the City? We have only recently 230 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 become aware that Foxwoods Partnership has as yet an unconsummated agreement of sale. Presumably, that arrangement is contingent on gaining its necessary approvals and option, if you will, on property actually owned by Philadelphia Roman; as such, re-siting becomes a relatively unencumbered process that incurs no great loss to either entity. We strongly urge Council to support protection of our neighborhoods, sustainable growth, and the highest development principles by rejecting this request for the zoning of Foxwoods at 1499 Columbus Boulevard, a/k/a Delaware Avenue. We believe all parties in this discussion would emerge winners should this Council continue to show the courage necessary to re-site these casinos. Finally, I'd like to take one more moment to express appreciation to Council for the opportunity to testify 231 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 on this matter. Thank you. )
Thank you very much. For the record, can you tell us what changes were made from the time the presentation was made to the Gaming Commission? And also the City Planning Commission?
Yes. We have a handout which breaks that down. There's a spreadsheet that shows the differences between phase development that accurately portrays what it was. And, in fact, Foxwoods present -- the plan that Foxwoods presented was a full build-out. That included Phases 1, II, and III. However, when they went to the City Planning Commission, they only showed Phase I. Now, Madam President, logic would dictate that they want to get into the ground as soon as possible, 232 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 and I understand that. Therefore, they presented a plan. They said they didn't need riparian rights; that's open to question. And that encompasses Phase I only. However, we have these serious mitigation issues, and it's been demonstrated time and time again that if you're going to do a full build-out, you're probably going to need 10, maybe 15, years to have adequate infrastructure improvements to handle the amount of traffic which would be incurred by a 40 percent increase in activity going from Phase I to Phase II vis-a-vis the number of slots that would be in the facility. Our point is simply, you know, that it would be a travesty to approve zoning for Phase I without a proper mitigation plan, including traffic and all of the other considerations that look at a full build-out.
All 233 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 right. You also mentioned about site control.
Can you tell us what Foxwoods actually owns at this present time? And I just don't know how much -- when you talk about the site control, I just don't know what you're referring to.
Well, one thing we do know, Madam President, is that they do not have riparian rights, okay? That issue is --
Well, I don't think that issue was even one in question. It could be in the future, but it's not before us presently.
Well, you know, what they showed to the Planning Commission was a pared-down -- was Phase I that may or may not require riparian rights. They say it doesn't. We're not sure where that bulkhead line is. And under 234 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 any circumstances, it probably does encompass the need for riparian rights. That's just one issue. There are two other issues: the ownership issue and also the other rights-of-way that have not been granted by Council. They do not have site control on any level. What they may have -- and, again, I don't know the answer to this except that if you Google "1499 South Columbus Boulevard," you're not going to find the Foxwoods Partnership as the owner.
-- regarding the riparian rights, because the matter of ownership is one question, but I understand that one does not have to have ownership to come and apply for zoning. 235 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 However, the riparian rights line has consistently been a problem. There are members of the project team that will tell you that they do not need riparian rights in order to build at least Phase I. Well, that is based on the perspective that the riparian line lies at a particular place. There are many others who contend, including Representative Bill Keller and Representative O'Brien, who contend that that riparian line does not lie where the Foxwoods development team would have you believe or according to their opinion. It is a major issue because it truly is our belief, based on the research that we have done, that no 20 matter whether they build Phase I, I and II, or I, II and III, that the riparian rights submerged land is truly an issue. How it will ultimately be decided as to where that line lays 236 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 remains to be seen, but at this point, I would not consider it acceptable that they can build without that because there is no substantiation either from sources, including the maps that were presented at the Gaming Oversight Committee September 11th -- it was a significant discussion on that -- and whether or not it winds up being an issue to be decided by some other branch of government remains to be seen, but it is an issue.
Madam President, if I may, I'd just like to leave you with this thought, that if we are successful in re-siting the casinos, all of these problems disappear.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, 237 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Madam Chair. And good afternoon. Pardon me. When I stepped away to get a little bit of a bite to eat, I'm not sure if anyone spoke to the actual makeup. What is PNA, for the purpose of my colleagues and --
The Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance is a consortium of 27 neighborhood groups spread throughout the City of Philadelphia, not just along the Delaware waterfront, who are neither anti-casino, are certainly not anti-jobs, are not anti-gambling. We are pro -- well, I wouldn't say pro-casino, but we are pro-economic development, we are pro-jobs being created, and we are certainly pro-good, responsible waterfront development. The Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance actually started out as two separate entities: a group of citizens from the northern end closer to the SugarHouse site and a group of 238 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 citizens closer to the southern end, and that was prior to December 20th, when the licenses were decided. We were very sure that nobody in their right mind would grant a license at the Foxwoods site, simply because of the complications. When those licenses were granted to the two waterfront casinos 2.4 miles apart from each other and each one being approximately 1.5 miles away from Independence Hall realized, both ends of the waterfront, north and south, realized that we had to join forces, and we did. And because people throughout the City share the concerns of good, responsible waterfront development, the movement has spread. We are now 27 community groups representing approximately 300,000 people, and we're growing. And we're not going away.
Thank you. 239 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Just again for the record, so my colleagues -- I know we've had a number of public hearings, and I always talk about the communities that are adjacent to the proposed sites. I think it's been clear in this testimony and in other testimony that these folks who we refer to as "NIMBYs." They've experienced other types of development that wasn't generally warmly received at the onset but we worked through a process and were able to get to a point where we saw development occur. I think it's really important, though, for this Council to understand that we're talking about 27 groups, so there are people as far away as probably Fairmount, Chestnut Hill --
-- that are opposed to this, so it's not the 240 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 NIMBY theory again. And the reason has to do with the fact that folks throughout this city, and in particular as a result of the PennPraxis study, have all come to realize the importance of our waterfront and see the potential for positive development that could occur there, and probably will occur there if we do the right things now as opposed to building out these casinos, which we anticipate would have a negative impact for any future development. I think Mr. de Wyngaert touched a little bit about on the issue what I had mentioned earlier. Many years ago, they may have been an appropriate use, but we don't need the casinos for development. So it has taken on a much bigger life than it did a few years ago. People from all walks of life throughout this entire city are 241 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 starting to recognize the fact that while we may support casinos in the City of Philadelphia, those two sites, even though they will not directly impact someone who lives in Chestnut Hill or Fairmount, just to name a few neighborhoods, they do see the overall impact for the growth of our waterfront, the central Delaware waterfront for the next 10, 20, 30 years. So, again, I just wanted to establish that there is one group, I understand, that is a new -- a fairly new association, a civic association, that is in close proximity to the SugarHouse site that does support. So in fairness, I just want to say that there is one small group in the Fishtown section that is in support of the SugarHouse site. We're not here for SugarHouse, but it's all tied into the same conversation, but for that group I don't know of any other 242 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 association that is supporting either of these two sites. So just for the record, of all of the groups that are represented in the 27, you're suggesting -- I think you said it, but I just want to make sure that they are all committed to relocating and re-siting these casinos?
Councilman, I might add one other, what I think is, absolutely a fact, is that in polling that was taken last year, 71 percent of the residents -- at least 71 percent of the residents living east of the Schuylkill River were opposed to siting the casinos on the water.
Actually, I'm familiar with that poll. It wasn't done for me; it was done for someone 243 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 else. But that poll represents folks who live all the way as far west as the Fairmount section of the City of Philadelphia and as far southwest as Southwest Philly, the 40th Ward, all the way up north through the 15th Ward. For those of you who aren't familiar with the wards, those are the words that are represented west of Broad Street and were included in that poll, and much to my surprise. I mean, there was a time that I would have made the argument that once you got west of Sixth Street that the opposition would have been minimal at best. But as -- again, as I said earlier, as people begin to represent the importance of our central Delaware waterfront and the potential for the right type of development, it has caught on significantly. And, again, the poll that I am familiar with goes as far west as Fairmount and Southwest Philadelphia. 244 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
And may I just add a comment on the one group that is supporting SugarHouse? True, they are residents and certainly entitled to act on their opinion, but they are unlike the other 27 groups -- not a long-term, organized civic organization with charters and bylaws who have fought other civic needs. Their primary cause seems to be that they happen to have a particular opinion.
I think I mentioned that it's newly-formed; that doesn't mean that they are not entitled to be heard, but it is a newly-formed group, and I just wanted that for the record.
I just wanted to say that because everybody at this table is closer to Foxwoods because today's subject matter is Foxwoods, but we are unified together.
Thank you. And, really, Councilman, in all fairness to some of my constituents who were here earlier, and there were quite a number of them, they came from the Point Breeze area, and they all apparently were in favor of, in favor of -- of Foxwoods. So --
But, again, if I may, Madam Chair, I just was making a calculation based on a poll that also took in Grays Ferry and other neighborhoods. It's 70 plus percent of the folks.
Well, just wanted to make mention because, as I said, they were here from early this morning and stayed until the time that we recessed. So I think, out of fairness to them, that should be mentioned.
Councilman Clarke? 246 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Yes.
Just I wanted to say one other comment, and you've been very generous time, and I'm happy to answer any other questions, but I just wanted to make it clear that many of us that you see here today, and many more that aren't here, have been going to the PennPraxis meetings soon after December of '06, when the PGCB made its decision, and have been stitching together a vision for what the waterfront could be, because our concern is the legacy for the children and the grandchildren, the future generations of the citizens of Philadelphia and the taxpayers. And I would say to you that our vision for the waterfront is not casinos.
Thank you, 247 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Madam President. Good afternoon. I just wanted a little clarity, and I don't know if my friend and colleague Councilman DiCicco or the members of the panel can respond to this, but first, I needed to get a list. If at all possible, could you get me a list of the 27 participating members of the neighborhood networks?
We will provide that, absolutely. It was actually on the screen, but you couldn't see it well, but we will provide something for you; I will see that you have that.
Okay, yeah, 'cause I'm interested in seeing where they are, and I know you did reference a --
I can give you that on a map that will show you where 248 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 the communities are.
Okay, 'cause you referenced two of the neighborhoods, not necessarily groups that are in the Councilmatic district that I represent, one which is Fairmount that my good friend and colleague Councilman Greenlee happens to live in. And I know there are a couple of groups up there -- I'm not sure if they're part of this -- in Fishtown, which I also represent a significant portion of Fishtown, that there is, as the Councilman acknowledged, a newly-formed group, but that newly-formed group happens to also have a significant number of members who are actually still in FNA, which is, as you call it, a long-term established organization. And one of the things that we've tried not to do in Fishtown, because there was this significant division, or marginal, depending on 249 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 how you characterize it, the discussions, the division forming between the people who were the recognized established community groups and the people who just happened to not be a part of that group in a long time. And I would not like to give the impression -- and I'm sure that you're not trying to give the impression of that -- because I was in a group as a recognized member for ten years. And, on the other hand, I happen to live in the neighborhood for years, but somehow, because I 17 wasn't a member of this group that my 18 characterization or my feelings should 19 not have as much significance as a 20 significance as the member who is in a recognize group.
And I must say, since Councilman brought up the fact that it's a newly-formed group, I 250 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 would not have -- who actually lives up in that neighborhood is not what I would call a very small group. That is a group that has grown in status and stature and membership over a period of time. As I've tried to massage my way through those issue up in this area -- and I know we're talking about Foxwoods, but I didn't bring SugarHouse up; other people did.
All right. It's a varying viewpoint about the SugarHouse site. As it relates to polls, we all know polls can be driven by the level of questions that are asked. I think, realistically, if you asked a person, Do you think a casino should be within 1500 feet of a neighborhood? more than likely, a person will say, No, absolutely not, 251 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 you know, so, I mean, depending on the questions, I don't want to give a whole lot of credence to polls.
Councilman, you know, if I might, Councilman, I hear you. Whereas there may be a lack of unanimity, complete unanimity, with regard to the opinions of the neighbors surrounding SugarHouse, I can assure you that there is no lack of unanimity in opposing Foxwoods for the civics to the South.
And, you know, I've testified -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
I've testified on behalf of the neighbors for SugarHouse as part of overall responsibilities. However, we're here today to discuss the Foxwoods CED, and for that, there is no lack of unanimity. We are 252 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 monolithically opposed to that casino, and I think most of the folks, quite frankly, up north are opposed to SugarHouse as well. It's arguable and -- but that's not why we're here today.
All right. You know, I brought it up because I heard a reference, and I was --
-- purposely sitting here relatively quiet throughout the hearing, 'cause I'm --
I've been on research trips to both the other casinos, to both Harrah's in Chester and to Philly Park, and one of the things I particularly liked about Harrah's is that it's two miles away from the highway; you'; re not going through communities. I mean, it's perfectly sited in that it's not towers and lights and traffic and noise and 253 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 the other excrement that happens as a result is not some somebody's backyard. I mean, no matter whether a person likes gambling or not, you have to really be honest with yourself to look at projects of that and say, Yeah, I could handle that 400 feet from my house.
Yeah, I actually went to Harrah's for the first time a week and a half ago because I wanted to see what that facility looked like.
And I saw two things, one that supports your claim with respects to the location, and I heard earlier questions about that facility and the ability to grow a neighborhood. It's actually across the street from a prison, so it's very unlikely that it grow in that particular neighborhood.
I hope it's not 254 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 going to grow a prison neighborhood.
Yeah, I mean, it's not -- and, you know, from that perspective, I don't really think there's really room for growth as it relates to the ancillary development. But I must tell you, and I actually told the Councilman and the Council President and this Councilperson, it was a fact-finding mission for me. I actually, you know, won a couple of dollars; I'm not going to lie. (Laughter.)
I had to make sure that the machines were working, you know.
I saw no 21 evidence of any outside activity as it relates to people or any other thing relating to problems. I mean, the cars and so on on Route -- is it 241? I forget the exact route; it's off of 95. 255 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 There's --
'Cause people can't walk there. There's no 5 pedestrian traffic there. It's cars. You drive there in your car, you park it, you get out, and you gamble, dine, eat, have a drink --
Let me ask the question. So the concern -- 'cause I've heard this about, you know, both ends, primarily in the SugarHouse area, about the outside activities, and I went to Harrah's. You drive in, people drove in, they parked, went in, came back out and got in their cars and went home. It was not a logjam of traffic. Is it a concern that people walking from the adjacent neighborhoods that can cause this exterior -- 256 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
And I understand the proximity and the traffic issue, particularly to Foxwoods 'cause I agree that traffic is --
But proximity means people walking to; it doesn't just mean proximity of cars. It means people can walk out of their house through the neighborhood, go back and create -- and do minor crimes or get sick and throw up on your car. And I'm not saying everybody who goes to a casino is like that. I've been to casinos; I've been to a lot of casinos. But the point is, when you increase significantly the amount of --
-- the amount of vehicular or people traffic -- 257 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
I understand, and I'm probably with you on this one. But I just need to get a clear understanding because if the concern relates to the individuals walking from a neighborhood in proximity to the casino and creating crimes during the course of their walk --
Councilman, can I help you out a little bit here? 258 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
I live at Old Swedes' Court; I've actually lived there for 30 years. Old Swedes' Court is comprised of 150 townhomes, of 11 which is new construction. 12
That's at Delaware 15 and Christian. It runs between 16 Christian and Queen Streets, right on 17 Delaware Avenue, so we are -- actually, 18 we're -- 19
I understand. It's 24 right across from Old Swedes' Church. 25 So these residents are living east of 259 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 the highway and directly on Delaware Avenue. Now, that's three blocks -- three blocks south of the double-slide under-ramp, which will be the main feeder for traffic coming down from the north exiting that ramp on top of all the traffic that we've got going now in the big boxes to the south. You cannot get through that corridor on a weekend, and Councilman Kenney and Councilman DiCicco have made it clear that, you know, people will take alternate routes. So we're talking about spilling a ton of traffic in this neighborhood, not even to mention how it's going to snarl up with the truck traffic and everything else. It is unmitigatable. It is bad. Now, maybe they could fix it now, maybe they could fix it now, but you add another 20,000 cars into that mix, and you're going to need some 260 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 major infrastructure, and it's going to take a long time to do that. And, quite frankly, I've lived there for 30 years, I've been a taxpaying resident along with my neighbors in the City of Philadelphia, and it is unfair to expect me to have to live with the impacts of all of that additional traffic after my investment of my life into this city along with everybody else that's sitting here today.
Getting back to -- and I'[m responding to statements that were made, and I agree with you on the traffic. As I said, I'm waiting to see how that's going to be mitigated 'cause I travel to Lowe's and every now then Ikea, and I get caught up in the traffic jams just like everybody else -- without the casino or without an Eagles game. This whole issue about 261 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 pedestrians, is that --
It's A valid issue. In fact, in a recent article 5 that interviewed people from the Stadium District, one of the issues that they were still hard-pressed to contend with was, they had managed to get some satisfaction on handling the vehicular traffic, but pedestrian traffic is a serious problem. It's a serious problem for two reasons: One, because if you go through Center City, particularly at the busier times of the day, and you see that people are crossing the street and they stop when the light -- even though the light is not with them, it holds the automobiles from across the other side of the intersection. So then that backs up, and then people have to sit through cycles. Now, one of the mitigations that had been proposed some time ago 262 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 by Foxwoods was to put the control device so people could cross the street. Well, couldn't you just see about a mile and a half of backed-up traffic with container trucks on Columbus Boulevard? So the proximity is a problem for the amount of vehicular traffic it will create in residential neighborhoods. It is a problem because the vehicular traffic will finally figure out when Columbus Boulevard, with all the razzle-dazzle, the light changes can be done, cannot be widened, that they will find other routes because drivers -- we all know how clever we can be. Drivers are going to find other ways to drive through residential streets with homes and with children on those streets. The street I live on is going to be one of the target areas; I'm on Federal Street. And proximity is a problem 263 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 because of pedestrians. Why because of pedestrians? Well, because you're going to have a flood of people coming not only by vehicle but walking and taking public transportation. They're going to be walking through the neighborhoods, they're going to be holding up the traffic signals and the cycles as they try to cross over, and some of them even, if it's a minute percent, even it's one tenth of one percent of the people who are unruly and come out of there perhaps with one cocktail too many, celebrating their great wins or satisfying their great losses, that's when the little crimes happen, the little robberies in the stores, the crime and vandalism, the --
Is there any evidence that people leaving a casino is going to go rob a store?
Yeah. There's a study; I'll provide it for you. It's 264 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 called the Aborne (sp?) study which gives the statistics of the rapid increase in crime in cities where --
Well, there is, not because they're at the casino but because of the sheer increase in the number of -- when you have an increase of a number of people by ratio, a number of people who will commit crimes increases. Just like if you have an increase in number of vehicles transversing Columbus Boulevard, you will have a number of accidents -- not because they're from the casino, but just because numbers increase. The ratio increases. And there are studies. The Aborne study is an excellent example of proof of studies -- legitimate, valid, carefully done studies that 265 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 show that the closer a casino is to a neighborhood, how much more the crime increases. It's convenience gambling. I'm not opposed to gambling; it's just not a beneficial site. And not only for the community. If the developers were being realistic, they would take this somewhere else, put this thing in the ground. I'll cut the ribbon for them. Just put it where you're going to generate the revenue that's going to take some of the tax burden because I live in a home that isn't tax-abated, so it's folks like me that are carrying a lot of the burden. So let's move it, let them make the money they want to make. They deserve it, it's a free- enterprise society in the United States, and let them do it where the mitigation costs are not so high, the social costs, the traffic costs, the 266 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 economic impacts on the surrounding small businesses. That's the only answer. (Applause.)
Thank you, Reen. I just have one other comment to make. A number of years back, the City decided that they were going to have the fireworks displays on Penn's Landing on July 4th. My wife and I were headed back from the shore, and we wanted to see the fireworks; however, we only got as far as Washington Avenue, and the gridlock from the fireworks basically shut down the -- God forbid, if you had a heart attack; if there was a helicopter overhead, you might have got out of there with your life. It was so bad that the following year, we complained to the City. The City came down and they shut the area down from Delaware 267 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Avenue all the way over to Sixth Street from below Washington Avenue all the way up there Lombard Street. They shut it down, they shut it down. They got -- they realized that they had an untenable situation, so you know what they did? They moved it over to across the other side of the City. And I think that's your answer.
There are a couple of things just to bear in mind as we conclude. Proximity is a problem, so it relates to site. And the other problems are three numbers: 24/7/356. The Stadium District and the other 268 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 districts have various events throughout the year that create large amounts of traffic, and I know I'm sort of leading into your next topic this is 24/7/356 -- how many days is there in a year?
365, 365. So 24/7/365. Now, think about that, think about this additional or 28,000 13 cars a day. Think about the increase 14 in pedestrian traffic, the increase in 15 delivery trucks that have to deliver 16 supplies. Think about that 14/7/365. 17
Okay. One 18 question. I keep hearing reference to 19 20, 25,000 cars. Is that what we're 20 talking about?
I think it's -- I think the number I heard was 60,000 a 269 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 week.
28,000 a day is what was projected in their earlier traffic report.
Councilman, if this thing were to get worked out to its full build-out of three phases, the original projection in terms of customers is 6 million customers a year, 6 million customers a year on Columbus Boulevard.
Madam 270 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 President, can I ask who -- someone from Foxwoods to -- 'cause I've been hearing that number thrown out there, and I'm saying, 20,000 cars?
Councilman, take into consideration that we're not talking now of one casino; we're talking two casinos. And the additional traffic generated by both is 40,000 cars a day?
That's what I need to get a handle on. What is the real -- well, the projected number? 'cause you don't know what it's going to be.
Councilman Clarke would like someone from Foxwoods to please approach the witness table to address this issue. (Witness comes forward.)
Identify yourself for the record. 271 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
My name is Jeff Green, and I'm a principal with Orth-Rodgers & Associates. I'm the traffic engineer for Foxwoods.
Yeah. The question is: During the course of the hearing, we've heard numbers thrown out, to 25,000 vehicles a day. Have 10 you determined what your projections 11 are for this site as it relate to the 12 number of vehicles in and out of that 13 location? 14
Yes, I have. And 18 it varies by the day of the week 19 because business will vary by the day 20 of the week. On a typical weekday, it's about 12,400; on a Friday, 19,200; on a Saturday, 28,400; and on a Sunday, 20,100.
And that's one casino, that's just Foxwoods; is that not correct, Jeff?
I was just asking about Foxwoods. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You can't answer his questions.
Yeah, if we can get that list of the organizations, the participating organizations, in the neighborhoods now, it would be helpful. 273 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
Neighborhood alliances. There's a lot of organizations out there. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments from members of this panel?
Just that I was just given a note that I'm not sure at which hearing it was -- we can certainly research this -- but Foxwoods testified at one point before City Council that it would be 50,000 cars a day; is that correct?
Yeah. I mean -- but it's a lot, whether it's 20 or 50. You know, a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon, it's serious cars. 274 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08