¡›î› COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, May 1, 2003 1:35 p.m. - - - BILL 030122 - an Ordinance amending Title of the 10 Philadelphia Code entitled, "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600 entitled, 11 "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section prohibiting or regulating the conducting of licensed 12 gambling operations within certain or all zoning districts of the City; all under certain terms and 13 conditions. 14 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL - - - V A R A L L O, INCORPORATED LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 ¡›î› I N D E X BILL 030122 PAGE THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... 54 LIZA SELTZER, Society Hill Civic Assoc. ..... 27 CARLA PUPPIN, Queen Village Neighbors Assoc.. 29 JAMES QUILLIGAN, Rivers Edge Civic Assoc. ... 30 HEATHER HARRIS, Old City Civic Assoc. ....... 34 MATT RUBEN, Northern Liberties Neighbors Association ............................ 51 BERNICE HAMEL, Society Hill Civic Assoc ..... 55 HARRIET MISHKIN ............................. 58 MARSHA BACAL, Society Hill Towers Political Action Committee ...................... 64 JOHN TERRY, Society Hill Towers PAC ........ 64 DAVID THOMSEN, ............................. 67 JUDITH KAPLOW APPLEBAUM, Washington Square West Civic Association ................ 71 JOE BARBER, Old City Consulting Group ...... 73 3 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for your patience. Councilmembers needed a few minutes to regroup. Today, the Council Committee on Rules is here to hear testimony on Bill No. 030122, which is an Ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia 9 Code entitled, "Zoning and Planning," by amending 10 Chapter 14-1600 entitled, "Miscellaneous," by adding 11 a new Section prohibiting or regulating the 12 conducting of licensed gambling operations within 13 certain or all zoning districts of the City; all 14 under certain terms and conditions. The introduction of this Bill by myself was based on a simple premise, that no licensed gambling establishment shall be permitted in Philadelphia without a City Council Ordinance and subsequent public hearings. If the State Legislature approves new forms of gambling in the State, as it appears likely to do, the various proposals today do not provide for any local public input or debate. Further, this Bill expires in three years because by then we shall have had an 4 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 opportunity to learn from the proposed gambling experiments and make any permanent decisions. By requiring the developers of any potential gambling establishments to obtain zoning permission from City Council would thus ensure that our neighborhood and its elected officials are in support of the specific proposal, as well as giving the community at large an opportunity to debate the proposal. This legislation is not in support or opposition to casinos, slots or tracks, riverboat casinos or any other proposals. I simply want to assure -- and hopefully Members of Council will concur -- that we simply want to ensure if gambling comes, it is what our residents want, and is located, situated, where residents have had at least some opportunity to be involved in the planning process and the traffic studies and all of the other things that are concomitant with good policymaking. We'd like the Administration to come up and just get us started. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Rules Committee. My 5 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 name is Thomas Chapman. I'm the Director of the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 5 030122. This Bill amends the Zoning Code by prohibiting the conducting of licensed gambling operations in the City of Philadelphia. This Bill would prohibit licensed gambling operations in the City unless the use is expressly permitted by Ordinance. The Bill further specifies that no variance shall be granted from this Section of the Zoning Code, except where the denial of the variance would affect an unconstitutional taking. This language has been used in the past to make it more difficult for the Zoning Board of Adjustment to support the granting of variances. The provisions of this Bill are set to expire three years after it is signed into law. There are a number of Bills pending in the State Legislature that would legalize various forms of licensed gambling in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Given this fact, we are sympathetic to what we understand are the objectives of this Bill, and would agree that licensed gambling, if it is authorized by the Legislature, should be 6 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 regulated in the City of Philadelphia. However, we recommend that Bill No. 4 030122 not be approved. We believe that the objectives of the Bill can be reached by reviewing current provisions of the Zoning Code to clearly determine under which classifications gambling uses could currently be permitted as a matter of right, and by amending these provisions of the Code so that the use is appropriately regulated. As a matter of fact, our Commission Chairman, at our last Commission session, asked that we investigate this very issue. To this end, after appropriate study, we would be more than happy to work with Council staff or the Law Department on the drafting of amendments to the Zoning Code. We believe it is not necessary to enact legislation that bans licensed gambling uses Citywide. Even a most generous reading of the existing provisions of the Code would reach the conclusion that most of the zoning classifications already do not permit legalized gambling. If I could just go off my testimony for one minute. I learned prior to the start of this hearing that you and the Members of the Committee 7 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 had not received copies of our testimony. I don't really have an explanation or excuse for that. But I just wanted to apologize on the record for that happening.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could we get the Clerk to make copies of that for us, please?
Yes. Thank you very much. Just kind of a general question. I know Councilman DiCicco is the Chairman of the Streets and Services Committee, and that Committee routinely hears proposed Ordinances any time a business person in the City wants to put a planter outside on the sidewalk, whether a newsstand operator wants to run an electrical line for a lottery machine or for some other electrification. I mean, we require the passage of Ordinances for things as mundane and as simple as that. Why would the Planning Commission oppose an Ordinance required to do something as expansive 8 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 as put a riverboat casino at the edge of Reed Street or somewhere in Philly? We do this for simple things, for uneventful requests, like flag poles, planters above the pavement, anything that sticks out above -- all those kinds of things we do on a regular basis. God, somebody wants to put a casino in your neighborhood, I think maybe an Ordinance 9 might be required. It might be something that would be beneficial to everybody. Do you have any sense on the differences of opinion on one issue as opposed to another?
Councilman, I'm not going to debate that with you. You make a good point. I think what I would say on this is that, often-times when we regulate uses, we feel -- and we hear from business operators and developers, whatever -- that we are discouraging them from coming into the City. The fear is that if we do this with whatever form of gambling that we wind up with, that maybe people will turn to the immediate suburbs and establish whatever use they want to establish, and that the City would lose the jobs and the tax benefits and the development opportunities.
I understand your 9 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 position. I just think probably the original examples I gave are more onerous to business than the example you're citing on the casino side or the gaming side. It just seems that obstacles are put in the way of businesses and institutions to do simple improvements to their property. That is also detrimental to being in a friendly business climate. We'll discuss it as it goes on. The Chair recognize Councilman Cohen.
I'm very concerned about the whole outlook with reference to gambling. Because the needs of the City financially can easily be used as an excuse to permit anything to take place in the City which promises some form of return in dollars and cents to the City. I'm concerned about the concept of gambling. I'm not sure whether I read this Ordinance to make it easier for gambling to come into Philadelphia or not. Right now, it's next door to us in New Jersey, and I'm sure we lose a lot of business to the Atlantic City casinos. But if that's the only test, then anything goes. I think that that means you'd have for all kinds of people to become addicted. We already have a very low income population in Philadelphia. If you add 10 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 to that the danger of addiction to gambling once it begins, making it easier, I think we have a cause of concern. But how would you read the authority of the State to legislate specifically? Could the State, in your judgment, pass a Bill saying that any gambling casino may operate anywhere in any zoning in Philadelphia? What is the power of the State, as you see it?
Councilman, in my opinion, I don't believe that the State could do what you said, that they could just willy-nilly anywhere in the City say that casinos could operate. There has to be some kind of controls and regulations to control the operations of any kind of gambling operation.
Do you know of any example where the State tried to make a specific requirement, or does the law limit them in saying this must be handled by zoning? Could the State come in? Have they done so? Do we know of any cases where the State has taken the position that they have the right to rezone themselves; that if the Zoning Board didn't do what they wanted, they 11 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 could pass the State law to make the Zoning Board do it?
I think there's one instance that's similar to what you're saying, and that is when the State took over all of the port facilities, the industrial port facilities, the Regional Port Authority. I think there was some zoning supersessions there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the Apollo Theater, now the Cores Center, legislation was introduced, but not needed, but it was introduced so that the State could zone that property because the District Councilman was opposing it. His is across from Temple University. It was a former car dealership, I believe. And then the City passed it, so it didn't become necessary. But it seemed like the State had the power to do that, if they so chose.
At least they acted 12 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 as if they had the power.
These are aspects I'm very glad the Chairman has introduced this Bill to begin this kind of discussion.
Well,I think the other thing, too, is that if we do ultimately pass this Bill, even if the State tries to supersede us in this legislation, we at least had some discussion or some opportunity to have a discussion in a courtroom to determine what actually the law is. So without absent that conflict by not passing the Bill, we wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on because there wouldn't be a conflict of two governments that need to be resolved by a court.
We have on our zoning books sport stadium districts, which basically are -- was the racetrack where Franklin Mills now is and the sites in the sports complex. Had we not done that, you can bet the State would have told us where we could have put a complex, whether it's a stadium or an arena. It is a good preemptive discussion point, if nothing else. But they've respected our zoning on the stadiums. 13 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122
Any more questions for this witness? Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chapman. Just a couple comments on your testimony. In the latter part of your testimony you referred to that -- I guess basically what you're saying is we don't want to send a negative signal out to anybody who wants to do business in the City of Philadelphia. And this kind of legislation may, in effect, discourage people in the gaming industry to want to look to Philadelphia. As you know, I've been a proponent of economic development, probably sometimes to the degree where some people have misunderstood my motives. But I certainly don't think that it will be that easy, even if the casinos wanted to go into the suburbs, which I think is not where they want to be, that would be that easy for them out there either. I mean, people are opposing malls. Developers are having a hard time even building tract housing out there because of suburban sprawl. So I don't think that that is a truly 14 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 viable argument in this case. I look at this legislation very similarly to other Bills that at least the District Council people have done. I know I've done a number of them where we've asked your department, the Planning Commission, to work with us to address the changes that are occurring in many of our neighborhoods and doing a massive reclassification as it relates to zoning. And for me, when I started this a long time ago, even before I became a Councilman in 1989, when I founded the Civic Association, the purpose of my going to then Councilman Tayoun and asking for a reclassification for the community group boundaries that I had begun was it allowed for the public to be part of the process, not necessarily to automatically say that because a G-2 or a C-2 or an R-10 became an R-10A, that we would never look to approve or support an application that would revert that property back to a C-2 or G-2. We just want to be part of the process. We want to make sure that things that are happening in a neighborhood are on balance, as best we can, and to encourage development. So again I think this, to me, in nature is very similar to 15 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 that. I do have one other question. My district is the 1st Councilmanic District. The Delaware River skirts most of the district. The potential for a gambling barge or barges in my district is rather likely. Where along that corridor they get placed or it gets placed still remains to be seen, if we ever get gambling approved in this Commonwealth; riverboat gambling, that is. I've been dealing with a number of folks, and a few of them are here today. We have formed a community alliance to deal with the Penns Landing development. It's been often said that there is a master plan. And then I've discussed it -- maybe not with you, Mr. Chapman, but I think I may have discussed it with Maxine not to long ago, Maxine Griffith, the Commissioner. It really depends on who you're talking to. Is there a plan or isn't there a plan? And what is this plan all about? So my question, I guess, would be to the Planning Commission, in this master plan, if one truly exists -- and I don't mean that to be sarcastic. If there actually is one that exists, I suspect that there has never been anything in that 16 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 plan that would accommodate riverboat gambling. I can't believe that, that years ago somebody was 4 even considering that. So in the scheme of things, 5 if there is this master plan, how would riverboat 6 gambling impact on that master plan, and would you 7 still be here saying that we shouldn't part of that 8 process? Because it could go really against what 9 your -- your, meaning the Planning Commission's -- 10 master plan is already about. 11
Councilman, you are 12 correct in assuming that riverboat gambling was not 13 considered as part of any of the riverfront 14 development plans that were approved by the Planning 15 Commission. Those plans were approved well in 16 advance of that discussion. And I believe that the 17 discussion of riverboat gambling started to take 18 place shortly after Mayor Rendell was elected. And 19 those plans were approved by the Planning 20 Commission, I would say, in the mid-'80s.
Twenty years or so ago. Twenty, twenty-five years is what I'm being told.
The Mayor -- this 17 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 Mayor, John Street, shortly after being sworn in in 1996 convened some sort of an emergency meeting at Dave and Buster's. And I remember the Mayor saying that night that -- because we were still talking about the Simon project and where we would go in terms of riverfront development. There must have been a couple hundred people there that night, and I still can't figure out why except for the fact that the Mayor said that that's what we're going to have, a master plan. Do you know of any master plan that has developed since that time? And, if so, did it make any accommodations for a possibility of riverboat gambling?
There's been no master plan that I'm aware of that ever addressed riverboat gambling.
Are you aware -- and this will probably be my last question. Are you familiar with the incinerator site? Mr. CHAPMAN: Sure.
Are you familiar with two proposals in the last several months by two different developers who had expressed an interest 18 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 for that site, for what I believe is truly family entertainment? One was a water park and the other was a combination of an ampitheater kind of facility, something similar to the Tweeter Center. Are you familiar with any of those?
Did the Planning Commission take a position as to whether or not to support those? Even though they were only in the conceptual stages, at least they got to the point where I've been involved with discussions on possible financing, and the Pennsylvania Corporation has been deeply involved into the aspects of either of those schemes.
They've never been advanced far enough for us to have any kind of a position on anything, you know. The only reason that I'm aware of it, in fact, is because Dominic Sabatini (ph) brought it up at one of the Penns Landing meetings that I was at. And he had a small set of, like, 11-by-17 plans that I had seen. But there's never been anything submitted to the Planning Commission for review or consideration of 19 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 any sort.
The plan that you're referencing, was that for the water park?
So that's the more recent one. Because the ampitheater, music hall, call it what you will, was actually prior to that. Are you familiar with the position that the Commerce Department has taken as it relates to the incinerator site and the proposed use of the water park or some sort of a family entertainment theme park?
Just for the record, Mr.Chairman, I've been dealing with this issue for several months now. I don't know if the water park or any other of the developments that have been proposed there, that are basically the kinds of things, I think, that most people support, family entertainment venues -- not even talking about retail -- these are truly what I consider family entertainment venues -- have been opposed by the Commerce Department. And the reason has been given -- although somewhat official, but kind of 20 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 unofficial -- official is that they think it's too valuable a piece of real estate because they would hope that if, in fact, riverboat gambling became a reality in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that that is a great site for a barge. I bring that to this Committee's attention because I think that goes to the very heart of what we're trying to do here, is that we need some safeguards. And I'm not suggesting -- and I know there's some folks who live very close to the incinerator site, who have already expressed to me that they would not support it, so I'm not here today by no means suggesting I'm an advocate or an opponent to that as of yet. I pretty much think I would be opposed, but I go through a process. I think everybody in this room knows that. But this is a perfect example of where we haven't even gotten to the point where riverboat gambling is even a possibility in this Commonwealth, but we're setting aside land and actually saying to one developer, Well, it's a great idea, but we don't think you should be there because it may be more valuable going forward should there be riverboat gambling. So, again, I'm not being argumentative 21 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 with you. You know I have the highest respect for you. But it kind of goes against what your earlier statement was, that we don't want to send a bad signal. I mean, here's a developer -- and they may not be real, but they were real enough to come up with some finances and a lot of other money that they've spent; and we basically said, no, thanks.
A lot of the central and southern waterfront has gone undeveloped for that very reason. And for the past decade or more, options have been paid to keep land vacant, until we decide whether we're ever going to have a casino there. There's a large parcel of land on Reed Street right across from the movie development there that could be developed 10 times over in the last 10, 12 years because of the spector of gaming always hanging over these parcels. We would have more residential housing development and, I'm sure, more retail development. Everybody waits for the big bucks in the gaming.
Well, that site that you referenced, Mr. Chair, at Delaware and Reed was actually the first site that Ikea -- that was their most desirable site. Most people don't even 22 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 know that. And then the second site was the incinerator site, which I didn't think it was the best use for it, but I at least gave them the time of day to go through all of that process with them. And then the third site became where we hope to break ground in about two weeks -- which became a very political, controversial thing for me. Most people don't know that I actually worked with Ikea for the better part of seven months to try to get them other sites. I always wanted Ikea to be here. Just for the record, the City's position already to date is not even to do anything except keep that incinerator pad available in the event that riverboat gambling becomes a reality.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if I can, I just want to get up to snuff. We have to deal with so many issues in City Council, and I'm not up to snuff in terms of the last, most recent proposal, where we are for the state as it relates to gaming in the City of Philadelphia or the State of Pennsylvania. And I know the most recent proposal, we have these 23 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 things called "racenos." Mr. Chapman, can you tell me where we are at the state level as it relates to the legislation that's being currently proposed?
I can tell you what I know, Councilman. And I'll be the first to admit, I'm not an expert on this topic. But there are, I would say, at least Bills pending in the State 10 Legislature related to all different kinds of gambling. There is a Senate Bill, 20, a Bill that has to do with racetracks or racenos, as you had said, the racetracks with slot machines. There's another Bill, a House Bill, 520, establishes a Gambling Impact Committee. House Bill 570 is a Bill that would legalize keno. Senate Bill 292 is a Racetrack Gaming Control Board. And then there's a House Bill 1089. That bill is related to riverboat gaming and would also establish a Pennsylvania Gaming Commission. The Bills have a number of different sponsors. Some are common and some aren't. To the 24 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 best of my knowledge -- and maybe Councilman Kenney can correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't think any of these Bills have been enacted.
Do you know -- and understanding that you're not, obviously, either the sponsor of or have knowledge in a great level of detail -- do you know if any of those Bills speak of any local control on the selection process or the authorization process in any location in this City? Or does it simply say, at a racetrack -- the one that references racetracks -- or at a riverfront? I mean, what is in any of those Bills that talk about local authorization or local control in terms of the selection process beyond the current Zoning Code?
I think the best thing that I can say on that, is that I didn't see anything in any of these Bills that would preempt the City from regulating any of these uses. I was actually surprised to find that.
When you say preemptive, do mean the current Zoning Board?
What I mean by that is, in any of the Bills that I've read, the State is not 25 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 attempting to take away the right of the City to regulate this industry.
But are they giving us the right? That's more my question than prohibiting our ability to do it. My question is, if the legislation comes down, and it doesn't put in place the ability for the City to have some process, be it the Zoning Board or legislative process or Executive Order, whatever, to be involved in the process of locating casino or raceno or pokeno or whatever the other names are that are coming up out of the hopper in a particular location.
I understand your question. I don't have a very good answer for it. All I can say is that I assume since they have not taken away our ability to regulate it, that we can.
What ability do we have to regulate it now beyond the Zoning Board?
All of the usual L&I related kind of stuff regarding licenses for the use, all the various building controls.
It's just simply regulatory issues in terms of providing specifications for the building you're building, 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 egress issues as it relates to traffic flow, design?
Yes. Whether the City can establish its own City of Philadelphia Gaming Commission, I couldn't answer that question, sir.
All right. I think I kind of think that, not having talked at any great length to the sponsor, I just know personally that's, to some degree, my concern, as this issue continues to come to the forefront. I really don't see any language or any discussion on the State level that talks about the local control. I was asked recently about that, did I support that. I probably support games of chance or gaming to some degree, but I would like to, at a minimum, be in a position to regulate the type and the location and the usage of that and anything related to that on a local level, somewhat beyond the Zoning Board. Because as you know, the Zoning Board is the Zoning Board. It's not the elected official that ultimately has to respond to the citizens, and I'm a little concerned about our ability to be in that process.
I just want to get the panel started because they've been waiting.
I'm going to be in this back room. I haven't eaten since last night, so I will be listening to everything that you're saying. I don't want you to think I'm leaving.
We'd like to call first community witnesses. Liza Seltzer, James Quilligan, Carla Puppin, please. I apologize for our inefficient room, but we're still outdoors here.
That's okay. Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Liza Seltzer. I've lived in Society Hill for nine years and I am the incoming president of the Society Hill Civic Association. In addition, my husband and I own and operate a business in Old City. I care deeply about the future of Philadelphia. I'd like to share a personal observation with you. I moved to Philadelphia from Chicago nine years ago. While in Chicago, I had the opportunity 28 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 to visit the Quad Cities, four cities that come together on the Mississippi River in Iowa and Illinois. Riverboat gambling was introduced in the Quad Cities in 1991, and within a couple years its impact was clear. While casino parking lots were full on a Saturday afternoon and businesses within a two-block radius were open, beyond that small circle of economic activity, there were countless stores, restaurants, car dealerships and other businesses boarded up. It was one of the more depressing places I've been in, in the United States. I believe that gambling is neither harmless recreation nor an easy way to generate revenue. The gambling industry thrives on addiction, and the cost to the communities that invite it in far exceed the benefits when social costs are considered. Please understand that I fully appreciate that our schools in particular need more money. I have three children enrolled in private school because our local elementary schools fall short of expectations. More money might make the schools better, but we need to look at the larger picture. I'd hate to see Philadelphia, a place I 29 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 feel good about raising my children in, become as unappealing a place to live as Atlantic City, New Orleans, the Quad Cities or any City that has made the argument that gambling revenues will improve their schools. That's why I feel so strongly about this Bill. Neighborhoods that may be affected must have a say in whether gambling should be allowed; and if it is to be allowed, the form it may take. The best way to ensure this is to require that our elected officials in City Council, who are accountable to the neighborhoods, must have the authority to accept or reject any proposal for gambling establishments in Philadelphia. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony, and thank you for your patience in waiting. We apologize for the delay. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Carla Puppin. I am the Executive Director of the Queen Village Neighbors Association. I'm here today on behalf of the Association to support Bill 030122. A few years ago our Association, along 30 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 with several other neighborhood associations, expressed our concerns about the impact of riverboat gambling in Philadelphia. The prospect of gambling establishments in or near any neighborhood raises many concerns related to the quality of life of that particular neighborhood and beyond. Neighborhoods must have a say in discussions regarding gambling. If the State Legislature approves new forms of gambling here in Pennsylvania, the various Bills to date do not provide for any local input whatsoever. Bill 030122 addresses that deficiency by requiring that no licensed gambling establishments be permitted in Philadelphia without a Council Ordinance and subsequent public hearings. We ask that you support the Bill and pass it out of the Rules Committee. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is James Quilligan. I'm President of Rivers Edge Civic Association. We're located between Old City and Northern Liberties. We're located on 31 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 Columbus Boulevard across the street from Dave and Busters, Rock Lobster, down in that area. We're here to support this Bill and we think it's a very necessary safeguard for the communities. I'm here to indicate to you what the situation already is in our neighborhood. We're right down on ground zero. We're right in the neighborhood nightclub district. We've witnessed over the last several years murders up along Columbus Boulevard in Northern Liberties. And we have a continuing problem in our neighborhood of people who wander down from the clubs at 2:00 a.m. drunken, have fights, trash our neighborhood, uproot plants, steal bicycles, steal various items of landscaping equipment in the neighborhood. We have mayhem in our neighborhood. The Police Department has done a very good job, I must say, in mitigating the results of all that kind of craziness after hours. But I am here to tell you that if gambling comes in, we're going to see more of that type of behavior in our neighborhood and in other sites along the waterfront. We're very concerned about that, as well as a few other factors. If the traffic and parking problems 32 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 aren't examined in terms of what riverboat gambling also would do on the waterfront, we're going to have major problems down at Columbus Boulevard and the neighborhoods adjacent to Columbus Boulevard. And the customers who go to and from the nightclubs already exhibit a lot of drunken behavior, but we really shudder in our boots to think what might take place if there are gamblers involved as well.
Do you mean if a guy just lost five grand, how he would feel if he was drunk and annoyed and with $5,000 less money in his pocket?
That's right, Mr. Chairman. In the larger sense -- Councilman DiCicco mentioned the lack of a master plan earlier. And it's our consideration, you know, the development along Penns Landing has been piece meal all along. The only master plan appears to be Penns Landing Corporation, and they keep the master plan, whatever that is, closely held to their own interests. So we strongly advocate a master plan, as well. I know that's not part of this Bill, but I 33 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 think that that's something that everybody should be looking toward, a master plan for the waterfront. Because if we don't have that in association with the influx of gambling coming to the waterfront, we could be looking at some very serious problems on the waterfront, if there's nothing to regulate that kind of development. The last thing I would like to mention is that we support this legislation primarily because it provides checks and balances, at least to a minimal extent for the people along the waterfront. We would support in the long term some kind of waterfront entertainment district, as well, which would provide a kind of special services district and would help to clean up the neighborhoods. And it would help to regulate the kind of bad behavior that we're already witnessing along the neighborhood waterfront. I can tell you, the future is already here. Because the nightclubs, as they say, are already out of control. And we only expect to see that situation grow worse as time goes on, especially if neighborhood gambling comes in. And, again, this legislation would provide checks and 34 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 balances that we would like to see to give the communities a voice in mitigating those kinds of external effects that we really don't want to see along the waterfront. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Heather Harris. I'm the President of the Old City Civic Association. Thank you, Councilman Kenney. As President of the OCCA and as a resident of Old City and a property owner and a business owner, I urge this Rules Committee to support and pass out of Committee Bill 030122. The mission of the Old City Civic Association is to preserve the residential quality of life and the historic nature of Old City. We've historically accomplished this by working along with the City, for instance, the Zoning Board of Adjustment, in any decisions that affect us in terms of developments. We certainly desire and we would expect to be included in any future plans and decisions about gambling operations in the area. In my statement, I'm not speaking to whether we approve 35 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 or disapprove of gambling, because this is only about whether we have a say in the issue. I wish I could include everything in my statement that Jim Quilligan just said because what he said applies also to Old City. We have seen an explosion of liquor license applications down there, probably because we are more successful, because we will be more successful, what with Penns Landing coming along. And then, of course, there's the gambling issue. We're already working along with Councilman DiCicco and Senator Fumo and the LCD and L&I to try to put a curb on the number of liquor licenses in Old City. We have more per square foot or per square person than New Orleans does. There's got to be a limit to this. I don't know how much we can get pushed before we lose our residential quality down there. A few months ago I was talking with Walker Gilmore of the City Planning Commission. It was to do with something with a class I was taking up at Penn, and I was picking his brain. And I asked him if there were any central plan for the City, any master plan. And he said such a plan exists in various people's heads and in various 36 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 departments all over the City. It would be really cool to get that together and have a master plan. And this, of course, concerns me with Penns Landing. Just like Jim Quilligan said, we're doing it piecemeal. It reminds me, if I'm in my kitchen and I have a cup of sugar and I put that in a bowl, and then I say, "well, maybe I should put an egg in," by the end of the mixing, I've got a real mess because I didn't think ahead. Maybe there is some way that we could get together with the people who are working to plan Penns Landing, these neighborhood coalitions, and the Councilmen and everybody, and include in that plan what we're going to about gambling on Penns Landing. Thank you.
Thank you. We also have some real serious concerns, as a Member of the Board of Penns Landing, the process of planning for the development is being limited to a small group internally in the government. In the end, bringing a selected director for rubber-stamped approval, which I can guarantee as a Member of the Board there, and Councilman DiCicco there also, it's not going to 37 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 happen without a fight. We already expressed our opinion to the people there who are involved in the planning or involved in the evaluation of the proposals. They're not going to bring us just one. There's going to be perhaps a short list and then public input and public presentation and process. So we're very aware of how sometimes people try to get this thing in the hands of two or three or five people to decide the future of that waterfront. One of the problems with the waterfront, since I've been on there years, is that every 13 plan we consider or have approved, are these huge 14 mega plans. Maybe smaller and simpler and with more 15 flexibility is better after experiencing the Crystal Pavilion and everything else that's been going on down there. So we are beginning to change our mindset a little bit about what's going on. Thank you. Nat Ruben.
I just wanted your 38 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 reaction, because I know you're active in the community. In a small part of the community where I live in West Oak Lane, suddenly a big hardware store appeared, where there had been a series of small stores. People in the neighborhood thought the small stores were kind of quaint. They drew enough people for the business to be maintained, but they didn't take all the parking spaces. There were no 11 big crowds. Suddenly, this mammoth hardware store came along and said, we're going to rebuild. We're going to take over some four, five of these stores that are adjoining each other. When we went to Zoning, we saw there was a classification for hardware stores, in the way in which this area was zoned. I don't remember whether it was C-1 or C-3. And when we tried to fight it on behalf of the neighbors, we were met with the fact that this was a right permitted by the Zoning Code. I'm not sure what your feeling is and I would really like to know. I'd like to know what the feelings of Philadelphians are in general about this, particularly people who fight hard for their community every day of the week on zoning matters. 39 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 Do you feel that there ought to be zoning which gives some form of gambling operation a right so that nothing takes place in zoning, or are you suggesting that there be a zoning requirement each time before there is something? And, if so, would this be the only business that is so subjected to a zoning requirement? Would the gamblers have the ability to say to us, "Why do you pick us out for very special rough treatment? Why do we have to go through these steps, if nobody else does?" Mr. Chapman, if he's in the room 13 somewhere -- is he? That question would also be directed to you, and I'd like to have your answer, the version, after I hear the community activist's version. I'm looking for information as to how people in the community feel about it.
Well, you know, when I first moved to Old City in 1985 -- I've been here awhile, but I first moved to Old City in 1985.
You're a newcomer in Philadelphia unless you've lived here at least 75 or 80 years.
I'm not a Philadelphian 40 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 then. There was a really cool little hardware store, Stanley Hardware. And if you walked in and you had a little bolt, you could immediately find somebody who knew exactly what you needed. Then Wal-Mart and Home Depot opened down on Delaware Avenue. And as great as they are, Stanley Hardware is gone. And there's a restaurant there. I don't think any of us want to restrict gambling -- well, we're not going to speak to the moral issues of gambling. That's very difficult to do. But as Tom Chapman pointed out to me a few minutes ago, C-3 zoning can conceivably allow a gambling establishment to go in, which means that any storefront along Second Street -- or maybe the National Products site down at Second and Arch, that could conceivably become a casino, which would definitely affect the residential quality of life, the parking, the tone of Old City. I don't know whether that's the community's say or the Zoning Board's say or City Council's say, but I would certainly want people to have a right to object.
Some form of community 41 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 input into that. Now, I don't know whether people would think it was violating some right of theirs if the City said, Well, what if we made this strip along Penns Landing, like say by the incinerator, gambling only, and no gambling down by Home Depot; I don't know how that's going to affect people's sense of what they have a right to do or if that's at all legal.
Councilman, I'm sorry. I was sitting in the back of the room reading something. I really didn't hear your question that you posed to the witness.
Basically, the question is, is it your opinion that we ought to have areas where zoning would be a matter of right? Doesn't legislation exist today -- for example, I gave the example of a hardware store that took over a number of smaller stores in a zone where hardware stores were permitted. And the neighborhood found zoning doors closed to them when they sought to go to the Zoning Board because the Zoning Board pointed out that a hardware store, no 42 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 matter how big it was, has a right that exists under the zoning law under that zoning classification. I'm using that as an example. I said, is that what you're proposing here, or are you proposing a system where no matter what, there would have to have a public hearing at a Zoning Board, wherever there was a gambling casino? And then to that I said, would the gambling industry then have the right to claim that they were the only ones so subjected to hearings?
Can I just add to the frame of the question? I mean, certainly you're not equating a hardware store to a gaming casino?
And also we acknowledge the fact that any form of gambling in a casino setting, a riverboat, whatever, does impact on the community, as a result of alcohol that's involved, the addiction issues, and additionally the prevalence of other types of neighborhood crime issues that are attracted to the magnet of where the money is; prostitution, drug dealing, car theft. You can go on and on. Although I feel sorry for the small 43 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 hardware store owners who were overcome by Home Depot, I don't know whether or not that's the same long-term effect or encroachment upon the neighborhood as all the other things that are associated with gaming.
Well, if you were at a meeting in the neighborhood, you would think that they had been struck by the worst tragedy of their life.
Well, I don't think Home Depot attracted prostitution, car theft, drug dealing and -- whatever.
Councilman, I think the three or four forms of gambling that I mentioned today that I was aware of that were pending in the state legislature, I think they all present vastly different potential impacts. For example, a racetrack, I think we all know that in order for somebody to build a racetrack somewhere, you need lots of land to be able to do that. Keno, on the other hand, I don't know what the State's intention is to do with that, but keno could possibly be allowed in bars and hotels. Other forms of gambling, you know, if 44 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 we're going to have racetracks, if we're going to have slot machines, there's going to be parking issues. There's going to be all kinds of different impact issues. And I think that the one point that I would like to make, if I make any today at all, is that I think that we just need to study the issue. We need to figure out what we're going to get from the state, because none of us know right now what the state is going to approve.
But remember -- and this is something I've experienced with the State -- if we delay and wait to see what the State does, they will do it. And you never know in the State Legislature when a Bill gets attached to another Bill and it blows through the Legislature, a la the Parking Authority, a la SRC, a la the Convention Center. You could wake up one Tuesday morning after a Monday Session and wind up with gaming all approved and us as a City unprecedented out of it or superseded out of it. My argument is, is that if we have a Bill in place now and the state tries to supersede us with a quick bill that's passed through the Legislature, we'll at least have some argument to 45 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 make in a courtroom that we're in conflict with their State supersessions, as opposed to our own zoning capacity. In my experience with the Legislature, you could wake up Tuesday morning, Wednesday morning, and this all be done. That's how things so lightning quick happen there.
May I ask the two witnesses to remain, because I'd like to comment? I'd also like to address to the Chairman this question. Does our adoption of this Ordinance 13 indicate that the minds of City Council adopted it, that gambling is here, and therefore we've got to move right along and be ready for it? Does it foreclose the issue of should there be gambling? I'm concerned in that area.
I don't think it forecloses that issue because the state still has to approve it. I would rather have that prophylactic measure there ready to have some protection for us, as opposed to waiting to see what the State does or doesn't do. If we never need it, we never need it. They'll pass it and we don't need it. But I think it's inevitable considering what we've been hearing 46 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 and reading. In some form or another, we're going to have either racenos, keno or some type of slots, or video poker, at the minimum. Councilman O'Neill.
Mr. Chapman, obviously in this Bill gambling gets a pretty tough hurdle to go over. I don't usually have a problem with tough hurdles in zoning cases. Actually, I'm already thinking of some ideas I might take from this for some other uses. But do we have this same hurdle -- because I know I'm going to be asked by community groups -- for any other business or activity or use, I guess is just the simplest way of putting it, as we would have for gambling if this Bill would become law? Or would it pass Council? Because we always have the City Solicitor who may tell us it's not legal.
Yes. There's at least one other instance in the Zoning Code where pretty much this exact language is that you see in the Bill 22 regarding an unconstitutional taking. I believe that Councilwoman Tasco used that in an overlay that she have established up on North Fifth Street. I could be wrong about that, but I am positive that it 47 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 appears at least in one other instance in the Zoning Code.
It had to do with -- there was an influx of wholesale businesses on Fifth Street in the vicinity of Olney Avenue, both north and south of Olney Avenue, and it was having a negative impact on retail commercial establishments in the area.
But outside the Zoning Code, as we discussed before you arrived, on the Streets Code, a bank can't put a planter above the sidewalk without an Ordinance, or a newsstand can't run an electric conduit without an Ordinance. There are certain things we do outside zoning that we require specific Ordinances to do it, and they're relatively simple.
But that's not the use. That's something ancillary to the use. Could you get us a copy of that Bill? I could ask Councilwoman Tasco.
I just find it 48 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 interesting. Because I know what's going to happen. Councilman DiCicco has the riverfront, and every other district has civic associations, community groups that would like to have this kind of language about one or two things, whether it goes anywhere from a tattoo parlor to some other things that they're not so thrilled with. And you get frustrated by the Zoning Board's decisions. But this would specifically state that there is no place in the City where you could have gambling by right?
And that, not only don't you have it by right anywhere, but the Zoning Board, in granting a variance, wouldn't have the hardship standard that they now have for everything else, other than Fifth Street? They have this Constitutional taking requirement. If it's legal, I can work with this.
It was my belief, as a sponsor, that gaming is such a pervasive and overwhelming activity, it affects so many various aspects of neighborhood life, that it's even more so than a tattoo parlor, even more so. Although I 49 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 understand the same standard being applied, I think in the long run, over a long term, there's a much more invasive nature of gaming.
It's still a subjective opinion of yours. I mean, we could have people argue, you know, how they're self regulated and all this other stuff. But for everybody gambling in the neighborhoods along the riverfront, there's somebody in Somerton or somebody in Olney that has something that equally offends them and they would want this heavy, heavy, almost impossible burden to occur, should those uses want to come in. I may ask the City Solicitor, not so much in the way of preventing this, but just to see how far I can go with it. Because I think it's an interesting concept. I've tried some other ways of trying to get something in City Council where the Zoning Board clearly isn't following or even paying any attention to the hardship standard that they're supposed to go by, because of development interests or whatever, that City Council should get their hands around, and somehow on behalf of the residents -- I haven't figured one out, but at least this gives me something to work with. 50 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 Mr. Chapman, if you can think of anything that can have the Zoning Board not be the court of last resort for the people in the City before they get into the higher courts that seem to rubber stamp Zoning decisions more and more these days, but somehow be able to take where they clearly have abused their discretion. I mean, you don't have to be a lawyer to know it. They haven't even paid attention to the hardship. Oftentimes there's no arguments even made about the hardship, on the record, but the community loses. Maybe there's some ways we can come up with helpful legislation that might put another check on the Zoning Board when they screw up. And sometimes, I'm sure, they're screwing up for a good reason, because they're all appointed by the same person who has very strong interests sometimes in a certain decision. But if you could help with that. Because this is giving me all kinds of ideas. Again, I think I'll just talk to the Solicitor, because I've never seen it before. I want to make sure it's legal before I get all excited.
Thank you very much. 51 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 I'd like to try to get these panels moving because people have been here for a while. Matt Ruben, Bernice Hamel, and Harriet Mishkin.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee. My name is Matt Ruben. I am the President of the Board of Directors of the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association. I've lived in Philadelphia, first in Old City and now in Northern Liberties, for about 11 years. But, Councilman Cohen, my mother was born and raised here, and my grandmother came straight from Kiev off the boat into Philadelphia in 1912, so I have some roots that I'm trying to reconnect with, and I intend to stay put in Philadelphia for as long I can. I'm here to speak in favor of this Bill 20 on behalf of my neighborhood organization and my neighborhood, which is one of the more diverse neighborhoods ethnically and socioeconomically in the City. I'm here to speak in favor of this Bill 24 in the strongest possible terms. I think that the state, the federal 52 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 government, the media and common sense around the country has indicated that gambling is something different. I don't think we'll ever read a headline in the New York Times saying that tattoo parlors are now legal in 27 states. This is clearly an exceptional issue that everyone recognizes, as you said, Councilman Kenney, that the impact is tremendous. As neighbors and as residents of the City, quality of life is our most important concern. And a lot times we talk about quality of life as an adjunct to seemingly more important things, but quality of life is it. And as such, we deserve and require and we demand, to be honest, input into this kind of a decision in our neighborhood. We are in support of this because we need some process to have input. And you can be sure representative of gambling companies already in Philadelphia working on this and they're, as Councilman DiCicco said, there are real estate options that have been in existence for years. The wheels are already in motion. We need some kind of input. From our neighborhood we will have input, we will be present for discussion in our area 53 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 regardless of whether or not this Bill passes. And we also know that we are continually fighting battles for our quality of life. As many of you know, we've had miniature crime wave. It only lasted a month but it caused utter mayhem in our neighborhood and the amount police overtime and financial political capital expended by the City was tremendous strain of resources all over. We are fighting, as some of you know, a dual front battle with the closing of clubs. We're very aware of the tremendous impacts that these kinds of establishments, which don't even have gambling, have on our neighborhood. We will have input into this process. And it is my strong hope that that input that we will have, will include the provisions accounted for in this Bill. We think it's a great starting point. We think it's absolutely necessary, and we hope to work with all of you to help ensure that these kinds of establishments are located in appropriate places, if they're located at all, and that the types of establishments that exist are the ones that enhance quality of life, or at least do not ruin the quality of life that we're all working so hard for. 54 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 Thank you.
Just one question. Are you concerned at all about people getting the impression that if we're proposing legislation on that, this must be something that is certainly on its way, that the debate has ended and we're now preparing for the onslaught of gambling?
No. Because on the one hand, anyone who says that gambling does not have an exceptional impact on a community where a gambling establishment is located is either misinformed or a liar. Even people who support gambling, I think, would admit that gambling has a tremendous impact in the locations where you put it. So I think that, to my eyes, this Bill acknowledges that fact, pure and simple, and does not declare the debate over. On the other side, if one were to presume that the debate is over because this kind of Bill says, well, it's going to come no matter what, so we might as well make the best of it, again, I think, as the gentleman from the Planning Commission pointed out -- and I put a little different spin on it -- this Bill would raise the bar for being able 55 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 to locate gambling establishments in the City. So I think it doesn't say that the debate is over and it's inevitable precisely because it raises the bar so high and says, let's ask you. Do you want it where you live? Do you want it where you live? Because that's what the real question is. Because everybody lives somewhere, and any establishment has to go somewhere, even if the benefit is supposed to be general for the City. It has to go somewhere.
My name is Bernice Hamel. I'm a devoted citizen of Philadelphia, what many of you would consider a civic activist, a term that we've been using today. I applaud Councilman Kenney's initiative in proposing Bill 030122. Currently, I'm a Vice President of the Society Hill Civic Association, which represents approximately 5,000 taxpaying families. I'm also President of the Head House Conservancy, the nonprofit organization which restored an endangered national historical landmark structure that is owned by the City of Philadelphia. Over the years my efforts have often been focused on preserving the City's countless historic treasures and quality of 56 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 life we've enjoyed here. My purpose in speaking before this Committee today is to support Bill 030122, which was introduced on February 27th, 2003 by Councilman-At-Large James Kenney. This Bill 7 proposes that should the Pennsylvania legislature approve new forms of gambling within the state, gambling establishments of any kind will not be allowed to operate within City limits without first resuming two important levels of public hearings. First, it would require zoning approval by City Council. It would then be followed by subsequent public hearings from communities and citizens at large, taking into account the needs and wishes of our City's citizens. I believe this Bill will be supported by most Philadelphians concerned about balancing what is often the contradictory needs of City development versus sources of City revenue. The Bill would require any developer of a potential gambling establishment to obtain zoning permission from City Council, which would ensure that individual taxpayers and communities have the opportunity to consider and debate the idea of whether or not 57 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 gambling will be of benefit or harm to their respective neighborhoods or the City at the whole. Voters must become the ultimate decision makers regarding what could potentially have major long-term consequences for us all. Speaking on behalf of the citizens of Society Hill, our civic association will likely require time to debate the potential benefit or harm that gambling establishments could bring to our neighborhood and other nearby communities situated along the Delaware River. Bill 030122 will provide a level of caution whereby the interest of taxpaying citizens will be heard and given consideration. Although the Bill neither supports nor opposes the concept of casinos or other types of gambling establishments, it does support the idea that such establishments cannot operate without first learning if this is what our community or City is willing to support. Of course, I am personally opposed, but I cannot speak on behalf of everyone. I really feel this is an opportunity to be heard and to have public citizens here speak their mind. My guess is that most people will agree and applaud this 58 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 wonderful initiative you've taken.
Thank you very much. Can we have Paul Gutterman, Marsha Bacal, John Terry? Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. My name is Harriet Mishkin, and I am here to support this Bill that would require a City Council Ordinance and subsequent public hearings before a gambling establishment would be permitted in Philadelphia. I'm going to take a bit of a different twist in my following testimony. Not that I am opposed. In many ways I support everybody who went before me in terms of whether we want or do not want gambling. But my belief is that the Bill talks about the right for citizens to participate, and so that's where I want to focus my comments. The cornerstone of democracy in this country is participation of the governed in their government. Citizen participation give citizens the power to deliberate their future. Citizen participation leads to self determination. And that is not a new concept. Self determination refers to those processes which encourage communities of 59 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 people to identify their own wants and needs and to work cooperatively at satisfying them. This concept in the more recent years has been in the forefront beginning in the 1960s in the mental health movement, in the economic recovery movement, in the model cities movement. And because I am not as young as I used to be, I've been involved in all those movements over the last 40 years. Pennsylvania, by the way, has also been the supporter of citizen involvement in tune with the Federal Government Legislature. In 1967, their Legislature called for more citizen participation in community mental health. And even prior to that, the state hospital systems had citizen participation going back to 1958. Of the term "Maximum Feasible Participation" was actually written into a lot of federal legislation. Again, some other points. Ralph Nader's Green Party was founded on the concept of consumer participation, and that the domestic and international Peace Corps is also involved in having citizens in the countries where Americans go be involved in deciding their own future. And even 60 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 more currently, if we look at what we're doing in Iraq, we are now using coalitions to help the Iraqi people decide their own future. So what we're really talking about is a concept of citizen participation or self-determination. It's not new and, therefore, one wonders why we're even talking about the need, for those of us who are impacted by any decision, to even have to come and testify at a Bill.
Because there's a lot of money involved. And anytime there's a lot money involved, you better make sure you're protected.
So that's my own take on the historical perspective. On a personal perspective, as I mentioned, I began my career as a professional social worker, so I was involved in all of those community activities and model cities and mental health, et cetera. My question then is, how effective is citizen participation? Is it, in fact, a premise that we should supporting? Are the outcomes positive? Well, the research has shown that there 61 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 is a positive correlation between the degree of participation and the extent to which private and public agencies of the community serve the interests and meet the perceived needs of their constituents. Therefore, in Philadelphia, we must end what is sometimes a closed and in sensitive process of government bureaucracies who act as if they have a monopoly on decision-making, and work on empowering communities that feel, and sometime are, disenfranchised. How do I know this? I have lived in Philadelphia all my life. And I beat the man whose family came here the year 1912. My mother was born in 1909. I have lived in Center City for 35 years and in Society Hill for 27. I have personally experienced the development of Penns Landing, the hotel, the maintenance shed, the tram, the great plaza, without regard for those whose quality of life is impacted by development. At times we the citizens have to take responsibility for some of those failures. We did not organize and speak with a coherent and unified voice, unlike our fellow citizens in other neighborhoods who fought successfully against the highway on South Street and 62 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 the I-95 ramps in their neighborhood. Yet I remain hopeful. After I participated in all the recent forums sponsored by the Inquirer and the University of Pennsylvania on the future of Penns Landing, I am encouraged that we, the citizens of Philadelphia, who live here, work here, own here, own real estate here, own businesses here, pay huge amounts of taxes here, can make a difference. This Bill enlarges opportunities for citizens to contribute to policy-making and re-sensitizes our elected officials regarding the issues and priorities of those that they serve. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Mishkin. As your Councilperson for the last seven and a half years, and hopefully for the next four years going forward, I just want to reassure you that I will always make every effort to make certain that the community is part of a process. It is a 63 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 long, sometimes very arduous and painful process for me to have to engage in, but nevertheless I do believe it is right thing to do. Although we did not develop a push on the Penns Landing site -- and I know that some people were somewhat still opposed to the Simon project, which did not eventually get built -- but I did make certain from day one when then Mayor Ed Rendell chose the Simon Property Group as the developer, that there would be full participation from all of the civic associations and neighborhood groups that were immediately adjacent to the Penns Landing site. I can assure you, as I've assured a few members that are here today -- back in October I think I convened a meeting and said, we'll stick together. We don't know what this Mayor intends to do with Penns Landing, but we'll work together as coalition. And we actually had put together an alliance to deal with the future development of Penns Landing with or without casino gambling. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record. 64 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122
I'm Marsha Bacal. I am Chair of the Society Hill Towers Political Action Committee. And I'll be very brief. I thank you for the opportunity. I'm not sure what we're doing here because what we're doing here is what this Bill 8 provides. That's all it is. I mean, quite simply, unless I'm missing a point, what this Bill says is that we can come here and we can testify and we can make our feelings known. So on the basis of that, I have nothing more to say other than pass the Bill. And if we don't need it, hallelujah. And if we do, at least we have faced a clear and present danger. Having faced them before, I don't want to do it again. Thank you.
My name is John Terry, and I'm on the board of the Society Hill Towers PAC.
Excuse me. Is Mr. Gutterman here? No? Okay. Fine. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you.
I just very briefly wanted to 65 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 add information. The PAC took a survey of the residents last winter to try and find out what they were interested in, so we'd know how to move on this. And gambling didn't get to be a high ranking, as you can imagine, compared to, say, Penns Landing and other things like schools and taxes. But gambling was on the list. And there was an interesting bit of information in it. Because when we asked the residents how did they feel about slot machines at racetracks, they came out with a third liking the idea, a third not liking the idea, and it was okay with the middle. It broke down almost that way. But when we asked about casinos or riverboats, they were two to one against. And only 14 percent didn't have an opinion. So I think you can assume that it's sort of a reaffirmation of Tip O'Neill's famous comment about all politics being local. You, know we're there close to the river and they anticipate that the gambling might be close. If I can add something that isn't on that to try and answer Mr. Cohen's question before about the hardware stores. I think you need to make a distinction 66 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 between an open-entry industry, like retail, and a regulated industry. Visualize for a moment that we were only going to have two or three liquor establishments in Philadelphia. You know they'd need a large parking lot. They would have a lot of local impact wherever they were put. And the gambling casino is sort of like that. If the legislation was, you can have as many gambling -- and you know we'd have one as many as we have taverns -- it wouldn't have as much local impact.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have one question. Mr. Terry, when you were conducting your survey, and the question as to whether or not the folks -- I assume in the Towers you were surveying, just the Tower folks about casino gambling -- was the question posed, would you be in favor or against casino gambling at Penns Landing or casino gambling in general? I'm just curious.
I think it was more open-ended. It was about casino or riverboat gambling. It's contrasted with the slots at the 67 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 racetracks. And I think the people drew an inference that --
Thank you very much. David Thomsen, Tom Jacoby and Judith Kaplow Applebaum. Please identify yourself.
My name is David Thomsen, T-H-O-M-S-E-N. I'm from the Fairmount section of Philadelphia. I've lived in Philadelphia since 1965 and in Fairmount since 1976. When I first decided to come and testify, I had also decided that I would tell you that I was born and raised on Absecon Island. I was born in Atlantic City. My father was born there. I graduated from Atlantic City High School in 1957. And we knew even in 1957 that Atlantic City would not retain the nature it had. At that point the impact of the jet plane and air conditioning in the cities meant that the kind of tourist traffic that 68 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 we had at that time was not going to continue. We did have gambling in 1957. You say, what? Yes, we had gambling, but it just wasn't legal. And church-going types like myself and my parents knew where to go. Everybody knew where to go. But when gambling actually came in in the form of the casinos, I think that there were many unanticipated effects. And when you go to Atlantic City in recent years you will find that the dozen or more air-conditioned movie theaters are gone and until -- unless it's changed, there were no 13 supermarkets in Atlantic City whatsoever. So strange effects occurred in Atlantic City. And nor did the employment changes come along the way we might have thought. And I'm not giving an opinion on gambling. I'm saying there's many anticipated effects. I would like to leap over to what the Bill says. Because sitting here, I thought about the SS United States, barges, riverboats, and I'd like to ask the Council to think about, the Bill 23 says, not a permitted use in any zoning district within the City. What I want to know is, when a ship is moored in the river, it's not located on 69 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 real property within the City of Philadelphia. There's no deed to the water underneath the ship. Is the ship within the City of Philadelphia? And perhaps you might want to look at your wording of the Bill and expand this wording about gambling to also include access to gambling, whether that would be parking lots, bus stops, trains stations or whatever, because perhaps clever gambling company lawyers are going to say, "Oh, but our casino is on a ship. It's not within the City of Philadelphia." Now, maybe I'm wrong. I'm only a computer programmer, not a lawyer. But I think somebody had better look hard at whether ships are within the City of Philadelphia.
We will double check that. But it's my experience that the ship itself becomes an extension of the land, once you need to go from the land base onto the vessel. So we will double check that, but I believe that is case. Also, there would be no other way to get on it. Once the gangway is on, it's an extension -- unless you drop them from a parachute. Any place where there is connection to the land, it becomes an extension of. 70 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122
But you could move a ship out in the river, like the SS United States, and have boats go back and forth.
I'm not trying to take up their cause. I'm just saying, think over your Bill. I am in favor of the Bill. It seems to me the representative of democracy is what we need, and we particularly need it in this instance. And while it may not affect Fairmount where I live as directly as some of the people who have testified along the river --
I don't think that they're going to take over Boat House Row.
Let me tell you something. Those gaming companies got enough money to take over the Art Museum if they wanted to.
They're very persuasive. 71 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122
They're very creative. But that's my thoughts for the moment. And I commend you for bringing up this Bill. I hope we get -- I don't know if those people over there with the little books are reporters -- but I hope you get some publicity out of this somehow.
Good afternoon. I'm Judith Kaplow Applebaum, and I'm President of the Washington Square West Civic Association. I also am not here to talk about whether or not gambling is a good thing or a bad thing, but I am here to talk about public and citizen participation in the process. We feel very strongly that we cannot trust the folks in Harrisburg to make decisions for those of us who live within the City of Philadelphia. This Bill would give us some way of having public input and put some public pressure on our local politicians who do care about what their constituencies have to say. So the Washington Square West Civic Association very strongly endorses having this Bill. A number of years ago, the Coalition of 72 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 Philadelphia Neighbors Association took up the issue of riverboat gambling last time it came about. I think if you go back into history you will know that the Coalition very strongly opposed riverboat gambling. And they, as a voice of the citizens of Philadelphia, were able to have impact on what then happened. We want to have that same kind of opportunity. I have to tell you, I've only lived here five years, so I feel like I'm a baby compared to everyone here. I'm an ex-New-Yorker. I've adopted Philadelphia as my City of choice. It's a wonderful place to live. I think quality of life issues are very, very important. With the recent increases in our property taxes, it's not going to take very much to get people to leave Philadelphia if their quality of life changes a great deal. Those of us who are staying, are staying at some economic cost to us. And, again, we're staying because the quality of life in Philadelphia is wonderful. If you change that, you may have a result where you're going to lose your middle class, the people who are struggling to stay. And that will have a far greater impact on the City of Philadelphia. 73 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 Again, I strongly urge you to pass this Bill. Hopefully, we won't need it. But if Harrisburg does pass the laws permitting gambling, we do, as citizens of Philadelphia, have to have an avenue to have our say and to put pressure on our local politicians to act in the interests of the residents of Philadelphia.
Good afternoon, Members of Council. My name is Joe Barber. I'm President and Chief Economist of Old City Consulting Group. Our firm performed the Economic Modeling Statistics Reports, including Economic Impact Analyses. I'm also a resident of Old City, a member of the Old City Civic Association and I'm a pro-development member of the Development Committee. I am here to support Bill 030122 on behalf of Old City Consulting Group. From an economist's perspective, a rational person can make a reasonable decision to gamble in a casino. I'm not here to take a moral stand against gambling. The question before Council is whether Council should have ultimate control over 74 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 the location and types of casinos and other gambling allowed in the City. Behind that is the question, why not.
May I amend that statement just a moment, if you'll allow me? It's not that Council will have control. It's that the people who Council represents will have control, because I don't know of any District Councilperson that's going to go against the overwhelming wishes of their constituents. I didn't mean to interrupt.
A number of interests in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, including the Mayor's and the Governor's Office, want to see gambling in Philadelphia. While gambling is seen as a tax on stupidity, as we all know when you tax something, there's less of it. They also hope that even if public opinion is currently against casinos, once they are de-mistified and in place the benefits will become apparent and opinions will change. From this viewpoint, Council would be an irrational impediment to progress. Where will the benefits accrue and where will the cost be borne? The political benefits are clear. Revenue and income will be raised without 75 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 increasing taxes, while the costs will be harder to quantify. We know what the benefits can be, but with so many proposals floating around, the Commerce Department has no estimate of direct tax revenue or even the tax rate on profits. The direct tax benefit can't be calculated now. There has been much debate about the overall benefits of gambling. The reason there is so much uncertainty is that many of the costs and benefits can't be quantified. For example, there is the benefit of a good job for a family that had no 13 income, or the cost to a family of a problem gambler. In this case, a good indicator of the overall valuation would be opinion polls. In a 1999 study of gambling in Louisiana conducted for the Louisiana Gambling Control Board by the University of New Orleans, four years after the introduction of casino gambling, 28 percent felt that gambling is having a negative impact on their community, while only percent felt there was a 22 positive impact. These positive impacts varied by 23 the state of economic development prior to the introduction of gambling, ranging from 21 percent in Baton Rouge to 28 in Lake Charles. The value of 76 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 gambling is a local phenomenon. There are other effects on communities based on geographic location of gambling. Gambling is considered a cannibal industry in well-developed areas. In Economic Impact Studies, additional jobs are brought into areas. The multiplier, that is the total number of job created, including direct jobs and jobs created by spending of those with direct jobs is expected to be above too. New Orleans is the closest analogue to Philadelphia, given it is an urban area with a thriving tourist industry. In New Orleans, the multiplier is 1.3. That means that with the introduction of casinos, some of the businesses outside of the casinos closed or laid off employees. Entertainment dollars are spent in the casinos, rather than at the movies. There are fewer patrons for local bars and restaurants. Casino patrons take advantage of free food and drink, which constitutes a tax deduction for the casino, and also removes a source of sales tax revenue. National Opinion Research Center in the Gambling Impact and Behavior Study of 1999 found significantly more gambling problems in communities 77 050103 - RULES - BILL 030122 with better access to casinos. Within 50 miles of a casino, there was double the incidence of problem and pathological gambling, and more than double the level of pro capita gambling expenditures. With double incidence of pathological and problem gamblers within 50 miles of casinos, you also have to look at it cost. The cost of addicted gamblers is locally borne. They also found that the incidence of pathological gambling is higher in the African American community, which makes the problems larger in Philadelphia than in other areas. Gambling negatives may be outweighed by the positives, but they are a local phenomenon that must be considered with local input through their elected officials, and therefore Council should exercise control. Thank you.
Thank you very much. We are going to take a Councilman Nutter recess. As soon as he arrives, we will reconvene. (Brief recess.)
That concludes the testimony on the public hearing of the Rules Committee on Bill No. 030122. 78 ¡›î› COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Thursday, May 1, 2003 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL 030122. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL - - - 79 05/01/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now convene the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion on Bill 030122 with a Rules suspension.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 030122 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030122 is reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request has been made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. 80 05/01/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Thank you for your attendance and participation. (Council adjourned at 3:05 p.m.) - - - 81 ¡›î› C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of May 1, 2003, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public