m. - - - RES. NO. 000325 - Resolution calling upon the Law & Government Committee to hold hearings on the question of public financing of new stadiums. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, Chair, Committee of the Whole COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair, Committee on Law and Government COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. ----------------------------- 46 Pete Matthews, President AFSCME District 6 Council 33------------------------------------ 57 Wayne Johnson, Secretary/Treasurer, AFSCME 7 District Council 33--------------------------- 57 Cheung Ping Leung, President, Chinese Benevolent Association----------------------------------- 68 Prof. Andrew Zimbalist, Economics Professor, Smith College--------------------------------- 73 Prof. Mark Rosentraub, Professor, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University------------------------------------ 73 Leyhar Cheung, Interpreter----------------------- 131 John Vago, Mechanical Engineer, Water Department- 132 Bihong Guan, President, Greater Philadelphia United Chinese American Chamber of Commerce--- 136 C'Anne Anderson, Resident------------------------ 139 Whittier Dow, Representative, Housing Consortium for Disabled Individuals---------------------- 143 Mary Goldman, Representative, Americans for Democratic Action----------------------------- 146 Loraline Jones, Athletic Director, University City High School------------------------------ 149 Reverend Kathleen Jones, Resident---------------- 155 Ellen Somekawa, Executive Director, Asian Americans United------------------------------ 158 John Chin, President, Duck Chun Association------ 161 Robert Sugarman, Representative, Chinatown Coalition------------------------------------- 162 Amy Hooper, Resident----------------------------- 170 Sharon Nitage, Resident-------------------------- 173 Walter D. ) Eileen Hing, Hing Wah Yuen Homeowners Assoc. 183 Tim Lee, " " " " " 184 A. Toy, Phila. Chinatown Development Corp. 189 Lou Incognito, West Mt. Airy Neighbors ------ 196 Asian-American Students: Phally Chroy, Anh Ha, Wilfred Yip --------- 199 R. Addessa, Phila. Lesbian & Gay Task Force 206 Hal Sawyer, Germantown Community ------------ 209 Frances Gabo, Communist Party --------------- 216 Grant Gulibon, Commonwealth Foundation ------ 220 Beth McConnell, PennPIRG -------------------- 226 John Struble, Private Citizen --------------- 230 Debbie Wei, Asian-Americans United ---------- 232 Hele Gym, Concerned Asian-American Citizen 239 Mary Yee, " " " " 241 Gary Lee, Concerned Asian-American Citizen 249 George Moy, " " " " 258 Mai Huynh, " " " " 266 Robert Sklaroff, Private Citizen ------------ 278 Mitch Deighan, Northern Liberties Resident 281 S. Young, Hing Wah Yuen Homeowners Assoc. 286 P. Uyehara, Concerned Asian-American Citizen 288 Z. Abdul-Raheem, East Mt. Airy Neighbors 293 H. Hyde, Concerned Citizens of Del. Valley 295 Sara McEneaney, SOCC Member ----------------- 298 Tony DeSantis, Concerned PA Resident -------- 302 Jack Butler, Private Citizen ---------------- 307 Jack Trinsey, Developer --------------------- 312 Ron Hankin, Beaux Arts Lofts ---------------- 320 Dom Giordano, WPHT-AM Talk Show Host -------- 323 John Morley, South Philadelphia Resident 329 Marc DeBeary, Private Citizen --------------- 332 Ann Dixon, West Philadelphia Resident ------- 335 Sidney Lee, Lifelong Chinatown Resident 338 Louis Innocenzi, Simon Agape Club ----------- 343 Marilyn Kirsch, South Philadelphia Resident 347 Stephen Zwick, Architect -------------------- 350 Elizabeth Van Schaick, Beaux Arts Resident 357 Pamela Bierce, Concerned Phila. Resident 361 Lai Har Cheung.
Asian Americans United 364 Palma Moyer, South Philadelphia Resident 367 Gilbert Von Rettig -------------------------- 369 Gene Miller, Fairmount Area Resident -------- 370 M. Nagaki, Concerned Asian-American Citizen 373 Brian Huey " " " " 374 A. Devore, Concerned Philadelphia Resident 376 R. Averso, Concerned Philadelphia Resident 379 4 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
Thank you. This is a Public Hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Resolution No. 325. MR. McPHERSON: Resolution 325, Calling upon the Law and Government Committee to hold hearings on the questions of public financing of new stadiums.
Good afternoon, everyone. Because of the importance of the issue of providing public funding for the development and operation of sports facilities, I have placed this issue before the Committee of the Whole, rather than the Law and Government Committee, to which it was originally assigned. The purpose of this hearing is to simply elicit information and opinions, which I expect to be both positive and negative, regarding the appropriateness for which and the extent to which public funds should be considered for use to finance stadium projects. I want to make it perfectly clear that the purpose of this hearing is not to vote for 5 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 or against any particular stadium site or project, but it is merely an opportunity to have witnesses express their views and to educate the public and City Council on what has been done in other jurisdictions and on what might be feasible for the City of Philadelphia. I want everybody to know that we do have a witness list of approximately 132 people. To that end, I want to establish certain ground rules regarding how the hearing will proceed. Anyone who wishes to testify will certainly be given the opportunity to do so. If necessary, time limitations may be placed on the testimony of witnesses. The audience will treat witnesses with respect and shall not be allowed to interrupt testimony. If the audience does not maintain ordinance, any individual causing disruption will be asked to leave the chamber. If the person does not leave of his own volition, the person will be escorted out of the chambers. To my knowledge, there is no 6 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 legislative body who allows disruption in their chambers, and I will not tolerate any disruption here in Council chambers. With that being said, the Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. I agree very much that this is an extremely important hearing. Because for the first time the people of Philadelphia are going to have an opportunity to speak to their elected representatives here in Philadelphia and to state their view about public financing for stadiums, whether there ought to be; and, if so, how much; and is it an investment or is it a contribution; how will it be collected; how does the city deal with the question of public financing for stadiums in view of public financing needs. The hope ultimately is that all the facts will be placed before all the people of Philadelphia so that they can help City Council reach a sound conclusion when the matter finally comes to us before a vote. Today is, I hope, the beginning of a 7 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 dialogue across all of Philadelphia. We want to know what you think. Most Council Members have heard from their constituents in their local communities or at meetings wherever they have occurred. Now is the time to put your views out before us officially. And I think all of Philadelphia welcomes the opportunity. Until now it has appeared that there seemed to be only one question involved in the stadiums, and that was the question of site, where was it going to be. Well, that's an extremely important question, but that is not the only question. The other very major question is, to what extent, if at all, is it appropriate for public financing for these stadiums. So with that, Madam President, I thank you. I think your initial statement was very much in order. Because we want people to be able to speak without any kind of interruption. This is the beginning of putting together the information that will contribute to a final result. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Thank you, Madam President.
You are welcome, Councilman. Our first witness is Randy Albright, Senior Budget Analyst for the Pennsylvania Senate Appropriations Committee. Is Mr. Albright here? Good afternoon, sir.
Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Welcome, and thank you. Again, my name is Randy Albright. I am here as a Budget Analyst from the Senate Democratic Appropriations Committee in Harrisburg. The analysis that I am about to speak about was done by the Appropriations staff, at the request of Senator Fumo, who happens to be the Chairman of the entire Committee. And by virtue of the fact that, at least to date, all of the proposed stadium locations happen to be within the Senate district, he has asked us now on this second occasion to at least 9 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 provide, from our viewpoint, a fairly detailed cost analysis of locating the stadium this time at the proposed 12th and Vine site.
Mr. Albright, before you go ahead with that detailed analysis, can you tell us from the state perspective what the original financing plans were for stadiums in Philadelphia and in Pittsburgh, and anywhere else in the state, if there were any?
The original financing plans as they were discussed at the state level were done in conjunction with providing the state Capital Budget financing. At the time that they were discussed at the state level -- and this would have been during the fall of 1998 and into the winter of 1999 -- the expectation was that both projects would be financed with a third of the contributions coming from the state, and a third of the contributions coming from the teams, and a third of the contributions coming from the local jurisdictions.
I was referring to two 10 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 stadiums for both football and baseball in Pittsburgh; and two stadiums, one for football and one for baseball, in Philadelphia. At the time of those discussions and the Capital Budget authorizations that resulted, the state provided a total of $150 million for two stadiums in Pittsburgh and $170 million for two stadiums in Philadelphia, or $85 million per stadium.
75 million for each stadium, a total of $150 million. And, again, there is an assumed one-third share for total project costs that were expected to be about $450 million in Pittsburgh and slightly higher in Philadelphia.
So the thought of the state was that it was contributing one-third of the cost; is that right?
The total costs, including both stadium construction and whatever 11 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 infrastructure costs were necessary as part of the project.
Very good. Can you tell us what has happened as far as Pittsburgh is concerned? Are they more advanced, or are they at the same stage we are at?
Well, in the case of Pittsburgh, they are at this point on track, as far as we're aware. They plan to open both a football and a baseball stadium to be ready and functioning in the Year 2001. Now, as it turns out, the costs have in fact grown higher than were originally anticipated. But both of those stadiums will be constructed for what's now expected to be a combined cost of about $550 million.
Yes. The Pirates just by reference, the Pirates' stadium is now anticipated to cost about 262 million, and that's total costs, again, including the infrastructure improvements.
That's for a 38,000-seat baseball stadium in Pittsburgh. And the Steelers' stadium is a larger stadium to accommodate football, and that's going to cost approximately 284 million.
And you undertook this study as in your position on the Senate Appropriations Committee?
Okay. Thank you. Again, this is the second of these analysis that we have completed. The first one we did last summer, when we were discussing a proposed site at 12th and Broad. And, again, the Senator asked that the analysis be done because of the significantly higher costs associated with one location as opposed to another, given different circumstances around the city. The bottom line is that our analysis 13 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 at 12th and Vine was drawn largely, or many aspects of it were drawn, from the analysis that we had done at 12th and Spring Garden. But, in the end, the costs at the 12th and Vine Street location would be substantially above even those at Broad and Spring Garden. So that the total stadium costs, if we were to locate a stadium at the 12th and Vine site, would approach $685 million. (Audience reaction.)
You asked the initial questions about Pittsburgh, and it is a reasonable comparison. The fact is, a stadium at 12th and Vine would cost more than $100 million more than both stadiums will cost to construct in Pittsburgh.
Can you tell us the basis of your study and your analysis? (Audience reaction).
Mr. Albright, before you answer that, I would like to make an announcement. 14 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 The Fire Code allows 265 people in this room. Those that are standing, we have opened our Caucus Room, which is directly across the corridor. You will be able to hear the testimony as it's being presented to us in here. So please feel free to go into the Caucus Room. And if you are a witness, we will be more than happy to call you, your name, so that you would be able to come in here to testify. But we cannot allow people to be standing. We can only have 265 people in this room. So I would encourage all of you who are standing to please go into the Caucus Room. Thank you very much. Mr. Albright, please proceed.
You will hear in the Caucus Room. You can hear everything that's being said in the chamber. Thank you.
Thank you. If I might, what I would like to do is simply provide a brief breakdown of how we arrived at the approximate assessment of $685 15 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 million. The first cost item is the actual construction of the stadium. We are currently expecting the actual stadium construction to cost around $312 million. What I will simply point out as significant about this number is to underscore the fact that time is money. If you remember last year at this time, when we were talking about other stadium locations, the assumed actual construction cost of the stadium structure itself was expected to be in the neighborhood of $285 million. That cost, just due to the one-year delay in stadium construction, because we weren't able to come to a resolution about a site last year, is more than $25 million. So as I will get to later on in the report, one of the things that becomes more costly about the 12th and Vine location is the fact that other considerations will delay the ultimate construction of the stadium. And for each year in delay in the project, the cost will escalate by a factor of more 16 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 than $20 million. For the purposes of this report, we tried to conservatively use a 3 and a half percent inflation factor, or about 21 and a half million dollars a year, in additional costs. But, again, to use the illustration of just the increase in the estimated costs for stadium construction alone, that cost from last year to this year has already escalated by more than $25 million.
Did the state, when it authorized $85 million for each Philadelphia stadium to be built, did the state indicate in any way that if the costs ran higher, it would be willing to increase its share?
In fact, you rarely want to say something is etched in stone or something will be forever. But the only information that we have received at the state level from anyone, in any caucus or from the Governor, is that the state has always been adamant that its share was $85 million per stadium, and it was up to the teams and the locals if they were to exceed those costs, that the 17 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 state's share was to be a fixed cost.
So there is not much hope in looking stateward for additional funds?
That's correct. Now, there are some transportation and other infrastructure improvements that I will again allude to a little later when I go through the itemization. Some of those costs, for example, expenditures that SEPTA may make to upgrade transit stations, may in fact be picked up with partial state or even federal funding. But those are miniscule costs of the total cost estimates, as you will see when we go through the itemization.
One of the big cost factors for the 12th and Vine location is the actual acquisition, demolition, and site assembly. The proposed 12th and Vine site involves more than 150 parcels of land, involves about 15 acres, and involves dealing with more than 100 different property owners. 18 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 That process is expected to be long, there are legal impediments, there are process impediments, there are environmental IMPEDIMENTS, all of which COULD provide road blocks along the way and could provide delays in the process. And, again, I can't emphasize enough throughout this discussion that time is money. Our estimate conservatively is an expectation that when it is all said and done -- and we tried to optimistically assume that the site assembly process could actually be completed within a year -- that those costs won't exceed $85 million. I have to be honest and tell you that many of the real estate consultants that we talked to throughout our analysis have told us that that cost could be significantly higher. And, in fact, most of the estimates that we have received were in a range between 85 and 100 million dollars. But we tried to take the conservative end of that process in data gathering. But the bottom line is that we are doubtful that the site itself can be put together for less than $85 million in total costs. 19 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 And when I say, "total costs," I am including all of the real estate, relocation costs, all of the machinery and equipment for any operating business that has to be moved elsewhere, environmental remediation that might be part of that site acquisition process. So I am trying to simplify this as much as I can. But the bottom line is, to put all the parcels together, the costs at a minimum will probably range about $85 million.
The time factor, I mean, I have to be honest, it is more guesswork at this point than it is reality. The only thing you can look to from an historical basis here in the city is probably the site assembly for the Convention Center. And it is my understanding that that 20 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 was probably more closer to a three-year process. We, again, tried to be optimistic here and assumed that you're talking about a one- to a three-year period, and hopefully it can be done closer to one year from now.
What would that mean as far as construction and use of the stadium? When would it be built?
Again, we think that minimally, there is going to be a two-year delay in actually being able to begin construction. Now, that delay could result from the actual site assembly process, that delay could come from dealing with some utility issues that I will get to a little later, dealing with a PECO substation that has to be worked around, in the best case scenario, at the site. But we don't think we can begin construction at the 12th and Vine location for at least two years, until those things are taken care of.
The most optimistic 21 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 assumption that we could make was that the stadium would actually be ready for occupancy for the 2005 season.
That's the most optimistic scenario that we could come up with.
Now, there are a couple other -- I alluded to some environmental costs already that will likely be part of the site acquisition process. There are also some very -- some other unique environmental issues that will have to be remediated at the site. And I mentioned those separately and have a separate cost itemization for them. The viaduct from the old Reading Railroad that has to be removed from the site is a $10 million cost issue in and of itself. SEPTA also has a viaduct that runs through the site. And both of those via ducts would 22 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 have to be removed and remediated, again, before any construction can begin. We have again conservatively estimated those costs at $17 million. And I will be the first one to tell you, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising that additional environmental impediments are found once you are there. All we can identify and put costs on at this point are things that we are aware of. But minimally you will have some additional unique environmental issues that will have to be dealt with and paid for. And we have placed that cost at about $17 million currently. Parking, as it was at the proposed Broad and Spring Garden location, is another big cost factor at this site. There are --
There are currently a number of parking garages around the site. And the transportation, any transportation plan that's viable, will certainly depend on, actually, a majority of the people who are driving to the stadium actually parking and using lots that are 23 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 south of Vine Street, and then walking -- or even west of Broad Street, and then walking from those parking garages to the stadium. However, there is going to have to be some additional structured parking built, just like was proposed at the Broad and Spring Garden location, to accommodate staff, employees at the stadium, as well as the premium-paying customers. And if I might just say that those customers are really the life blood for any stadium project. If this stadium were to be successful anywhere in the city, and "successful" meaning that we're able to attract in excess of 3 million fans per year and the premium ticketholders that we are talking about that will really bring revenue, additional new revenue, to the city because of the construction of the stadium, it will really depend on the construction of additional structured parking to serve those customers. Now, the original Broad and Spring Garden proposal assumed the need for between three and four thousand additional parking spaces. There's one difference in the site 24 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 now as it's proposed at Vine and 12th. And that is that the Broad and Spring Garden location was located adjacent to the Philadelphia Community College, as well as SmithKline and other commercial users of parking facilities that could become shared facilities for a stadium site. In other words, the peak hours of usage for the commercial users did not conflict with the use of the stadium in the evening for paying customers for baseball. When you move the stadium down to 12th and Vine, you now don't have that same shared arrangement that will at least work for premium-parking facilities for the site. So we have assumed in this estimate that for the 12th and Vine location to work, you are going to need, at a minimum, to build an additional 4,500 structured parking spaces. We have estimated the cost of that to probably total about $20 million for site acquisition, and then the cost of each structured parking space is about $20,000 per space. That means that the total cost of structured parking for the facility is an estimated 25 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 $110 million. (Audience reaction.)
Some other costs associated with it. There will be some additional site improvements. What those site improvements are, I can't really outline for you in great detail at this point. What I can simply point out are that there are three essential needs that are going to have to be addressed at the site. The first need will be to provide some sort of an atmosphere that will actually be able to recreate, those of you that may be familiar with the Camden Yards in Baltimore, the scene along the outside of that warehouse that abuts the outfield of the Baltimore stadium along Utah Street, where they have a lot of commercial and retail activity. The assumption is that the Phillies would want to create some sort of similar atmosphere there to provide an area that looks both attractive and appealing to fans as they enter the baseball park. RESOLUTION NO. 000325 The second thing is that whatever pedestrian access is provided to the stadium site, something is going to be necessary to help move pedestrian traffic across Vine Street. And if we actually build a ramp, as had been proposed, again, as we compare it to the proposed Broad and Spring Garden site, that ramp would have to go fairly high above Vine Street to be able to cross it. And since the stadium footprint itself would locate the new stadium almost up against the back of Vine Street, you'd then have an architectural challenge to be able to bring that pedestrian ramp back down to street level, assuming you didn't want fans to enter the stadium directly at the second or third level of the stadium, and miss that whole Utah Street/Camden Yards sort of facade that we're assuming they want to create with the new Phillies ballpark. That will have to be addressed. And then the third issue is a PECO substation that I will get to in more detail in a little bit. But addressing all of those concerns, 27 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 we estimated minimally will present additional site challenges that will cost an additional $15 million. Utilities are a big issue at the stadium. One of the problems with the 12th and Vine site is the fact that PECO's main substation -- and I think it's commonly referred to as the Callowhill Station -- which serves all of downtown Philadelphia is currently located inside the footprint of the 12th and Vine site.
Is that the station that the Mayor said we would design the stadium around, we would not have to deal with it?
That's correct. There are several challenges associated with the substation. For our analysis -- and let me say, first of all, for our analysis we assumed that the Mayor is correct, that we can build a stadium at 12th and Vine and figure out a way to build the stadium around the existing substation, and not have to move it. I have to tell you that, in the end, if you do have have move it, the price tag for that 28 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 would be minimally another $100 million. (Audience reaction.)
But assuming it is feasible to build around the substation, you still need to figure out a way to relocate 35, 13,000 volt feeder cables and 138,000 volt transmission line that comes into and out of the substation. Now --
Let me just put it to you this way, put it simply: The cost of relocating those lines -- and let me first emphasize, to come back to this point again of how time is money, the time frame to relocate those lines around the perimeter footprint is probably a two-year process. The cost of that relocation process is minimally $25 million. And the biggest problem that still may face this whole hurdle is that PECO may not own enough right-of-way to relocate those lines around the perimeter of the footprint. If that's the case, and PECO would need to acquire more right-of-way to provide, you 29 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 know, some solution that keeps the substation operating at the site, then you are talking about additional costs, the costs that we haven't factored into our cost analysis. And, maybe most importantly, no 7 stadium construction can begin until these lines get relocated. So to once again go back to our assumption being, a stadium can't be ready until the year 2005, it is largely because, even in the most optimistic scenario, we need that much time to relocate these transmission lines before any stadium construction can actually begin. In addition to PECO, they are not the only utility that has lines there that have to be relocated. SEPTA also has its own substation that's located on the site that would have to be relocated. Now, SEPTA does have a Capital Budget authorization to accomplish that in several years from now that they may be able to expedite, but there is a $17 million line item in SEPTA's long-term capital plan right now to relocate their 30 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 substation facility. There are other utilities that are already operating that are located on site that would also have to be relocated. And, finally, there are backup generators for a telecommunications center that operates at 401 North Broad Street that would also have to be relocated outside their existing location, which is inside the proposed 12th and Vine stadium footprint. All of those costs combined will minimally add up to $45 million. And, again, I have to emphasize that we have not dealt with the issue of existing right-of-way if PECO doesn't have enough to relocate those transmission lines, as currently configured.
Have you dealt with each of the specific factors involved? Have you dealt with each of the specific factors?
I'm sorry. The rest 31 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 of the cost factors are -- and I hate to use the word "minimal" because we are talking in each case about millions of dollars -- but they are less dramatic. There are some street improvements. Callowhill, 12th Street, we would have to widen 13th Street. There may be some improvements to ramps that need to be addressed. Street improvements would probably cost an additional $15 million. There is a pedestrian walkway that would have to be built. It is our assumption that a minimum of one walkway would be necessary. And we have included a 7 and a half million dollar cost to accomplish that. There have been many people that have suggested more than one walkway may be necessary to cross Vine Street. There have been even those who have suggested that some sort of pedestrian ramp across Broad Street may be necessary, since, again, a substantial amount of the vehicle traffic is expected to park even west of Broad, and then walk to the site. 32 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 That may create too much congestion along those highways, particularly realizing that this is traffic coming to the stadium still during the fringe of rush hour. Then another land bridge would be built. But we have only assumed one would be necessary in this analysis. Upgrades at some of SEPTA's --
Excuse me. If a ramp were to be built, do you have any cost estimate for that?
Yes. 7 and a half million dollars was, again, based on the Broad and Spring Garden proposal, was a real estimate at the time, based on the construction of one pedestrian bridge across Vine Street to the Broad and Spring Garden ballpark.
Transit improvements would involve upgrades to two of SEPTA's local transit stations at an 8 and a half million dollar cost. There is an assumption right now that we would spend a million and a half dollars to 33 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 widen -- to add one additional lane along Vine Street. There is also a payment to Comcast Spectacor, and this requires a minute of elaboration. But when we built what's now the First Union Center, one of the ways we financed that is, we agreed that Comcast would receive all of the future parking revenue for all of the events that go on in South Philadelphia, including Phillies and Eagles games, with the promise to them that if the city ever allowed either of the teams to relocate elsewhere, that there would be a lump-sum payment to Comcast to make up for the lost revenue that would occur from that relocation. I will say, this is the one unique cost factor. That the longer we delay the construction of the stadium, the cheaper this cost factor gets. But it is the only one that the cost goes down the longer we wait. Again, assuming that what today is probably still a $10 million liability, reaches closer to $5 million if the stadium is not really built and ready until the Year 2005. But that still 34 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 will be a $5 million payout that would be necessary to Comcast. And the final two cost factors, again, one I have alluded to earlier, and that's the inflation factor for the number of years that we have to delay the actual stadium construction because of the other impediments that I have already talked about. We have used a three and a half percent inflation factor, again, which is probably fairly conservative, or a total cost of about 43 and a half million dollars, assuming we can actually get the stadium built by the Year 2005. And, finally, we put close to $20 million in here as a 3 percent contingency fund. Again, I have already referenced several cost issues that could drive these costs much higher, the need to acquire additional right-of-way to relocate those utility lines for the PECO substation, if we determined in the end that we truly did have to relocate the PECO substation entirely, if additional environmental remediation problems are found at the site once we get there and begin construction, the transportation access. 35 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 There are a lot of people that say just the existing Vine Street ramps themselves would have to be redone, that are simply not workable or capable of handling the volume that we would expect them to handle by combining stadium traffic on top of the existing rush-hour traffic. None of those additional costs have been factored into this analysis. Any one of those factors that I just alluded to could add far in excess of $20 million to the project, but we carry a $20 million contingency fund. When you add all those numbers, you get to $685 million.
And that's the estimate the Mayor said the other day that he knows the cost will exceed this estimate? So he seems to be in agreement with you?
I really don't know what his cost analysis may end up to be. I have to be honest and tell you that if you are asking me, is there a greater risk of the stadium being more expensive or less expensive than the numbers that I have just provided to you, I have to say that the risk is much greater on the up 36 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 side.
Thank you very much, Mr. Albright. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Mr. Albright, during the discussion on the Broad and Spring Garden site, we had received some information about new stadium construction across the country, both for baseball and football. And if my recollection is correct, a substantial number of them were being financed based on an impending termination of leases, particularly in the decision-making process. And as we talk about comparisons to Pittsburgh stadiums versus the Philadelphia stadiums, what's the story on the Pittsburgh stadiums with respect to their leases between the municipalities and the teams? 37 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
I don't want to pretend that I have any expertise beyond the stadium analysis as in front of you. I think in Pittsburgh's case, they did have a lease that had to be broken and then renegotiated. But I'm not here -- and I believe you have some stadium consultants that are going to follow me. I think they are probably the more appropriate people to answer that question and give you any at least expert testimony in that regard.
All right. Well, I will wait until the professionals come up on that particular issue. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Albright. The original state appropriation for stadiums, what percentage of project costs was being covered by the state? 38 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
Again, the original expectation or assumption at the state level was that we were providing $85 million for each stadium, and that $85 million in Philadelphia would represent one-third of the anticipated total costs of construction.
And what is the percentage of project costs anticipated to be covered now by the state?
The state's share, or the state's contribution, is not expected to increase. In other words, it is $85 million. And the more expensive the stadium becomes, the smaller the state's share becomes.
Mr. Albright, on March 2 this Council unanimously passed a resolution 19 establishing public benefit criteria for economic development projects with an investment of more than $1 million. Five days later, the state Senate amended Bill 1169 establishing a prohibition that reads as follows, "A contract for general contractor work in redevelopment assistance capital project may 39 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 not contain a provision which requires a specified percentage of a contracting party's work force be resident of a specific municipality." Is it the intention of the state to withhold state funding contingent upon Philadelphia not requiring a percentage of jobs for Philadelphia residents?
Again, I don't want to hold myself out to be an expert in anything that I am not. So I am not in a position to respond to what the state's expectation was or was not with that legislation.
We are here to discuss public financing of stadiums, which includes state financing. There is an amendment to Bill 1169 that says that no municipality can require a percent of jobs for that municipality. You have already said that the percentage of project participation is going down for the stadium. 40 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Is the state going to withhold the funding if Philadelphia decides to require a percentage of jobs for Philadelphia residents?
Again, all I can say is that I am not here as a representative of the state to answer those types of questions. I mean, I am here solely as a representative of the Appropriations Committee staff looking at the cost factors involved with the construction.
To talk about cost without talking about public benefit is an empty discussion.
I think the point that you raise is a very valid one. But, again, as a budget analyst for the Senate Appropriations Committee, it would not be appropriate for me to offer an opinion that would be representative of that, of the Governor or the legislature.
So you just know that numbers are high. You still don't know whether that is a good investment or not.
Again, I don't want to even pretend that I am here to tell you whether the 41 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 investment is a good one or a bad one. I am here to simply tell you what the costs are. And it is to others, particularly people like yourselves, that have to decide whether that's a worthwhile investment of state, city, and team resources.
But if this project were to create 25,000 new jobs, which it won't, we decided to require 100 percent of the jobs to Philadelphia residents, those numbers might look a little bit different, might they not?
Again, the only thing I can tell you quantitatively is that the higher you drive total stadium costs, the lower you drive the state's participation.
But we definitely don't know the cost per job in terms of Philadelphia jobs because the state Senate has decided not to allow Philadelphia to require a percentage of the jobs to Philadelphia residents?
Again, from the state perspective, the state negotiated a state's share of the stadiums. And that was done in 1998 and 1999 based on assumed total construction costs at that 42 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 time. But clearly, like the agreement that Mayor Rendell brought before the city at the end of last year, it simply said that cost overruns were not going to be borne by the state.
Excuse me. Mr. Albright, nothing was brought before City Council by Mayor Rendell. I would like the record to be clear on that. I'm sorry. Please proceed, Councilman.
Should that amendment to Bill 1169 just apply to the state's share?
I don't know how many times I can answer the question. I'm not the person qualified to answer that question.
I am a Budget Analyst for the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Albright, I would like to go for a moment to the issue of stadium site orientation as it relates to the PECO substation. It has been reported and been agreed to, apparently for purposes of this analysis, that the PECO substation could remain, despite the fact that the feeder cables need to be moved. Is there not also issues of safety as it relates to the continued existence of the PECO substation and then, therefore, the orientation of the stadium in particular? And where I am going to is that, it is my understanding that we wouldn't want a situation where the stands that are filled with people are within close proximity to the actual substation. So in order to avoid that, we would have to really move, turn the stadium, rotate it, so that the open end of the stadium, where less people 44 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 were sitting, would be the area facing the existing substation?
That's correct. And, again, we aren't privy to what the Mayor and his committee may be planning or not planning at this point. We had to make assumptions for this cost analysis. And we had -- and we in every case tried to assume the least costly alternative. So what we assumed, as I alluded to earlier, some additional site costs involved to be able to allow the PECO substation to remain where it is, but figure out some way to safely have a stadium constructed on the site. If the stadium were configured in its original proposed location, that would place the substation directly behind the stands behind home plate. And I think there could be some concern that fans could literally be in a position to throw things or have some access to the substation from the stadium itself. So that the suggestion has been made to rotate the stadium 180 degrees, so it no longer 45 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 faces downtown, but instead faces more towards the Northeast, so that the substation would then be placed in the outfield, and then you could safely come up with a site plan that safely protects the public from the substation. And that's the assumed plan in this analysis.
Is not the aesthetic benefit to a downtown stadium, one of the issues of the aesthetics, is the ability to view the skyline of the city from the rear of the facility, therefore creating this urban feel -- and the city does have a beautiful skyline -- the skyline in the background that would be an attractive venue. Where would we be looking now, if I were sitting along the first base line based upon your analysis?
Again, the assumption is that now you would be facing more in a north or northeasterly direction. And, again, our committee is not suggesting that that's the preferable plan, but that is the least expensive remedy to figuring out how to build a stadium around the existence of the 46 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 substation that otherwise to relocate is going to cost $100 million.
But most, if not all, of the renderings that we have been shown and have been exposed in the press will show the orientation of the stadium with the beautiful city skyline in the background. I am sure you have seen these renderings.
And that's correct. But at this point it is our assumption that you can't actually build a stadium with that rendering in mind, unless you actually assume the $100 million cost to relocate the substation entirely.
Councilman, I am sorry. I don't mean to interrupt you. And, Mr. Albright, would you stay where you are. I know that you have to leave, also. But Cecelia Yep is here and has been asked to be given the opportunity to testify. She is being honored this evening, and I think she is going to have to leave very, very shortly. So with your permission, if we could just hear Ms. Yep. Just stay where you are. 47 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
Good afternoon and congratulations on your award tonight.
My name is Cecelia Moy Yep. As a founder of the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation, I have come before City Council many times expressing the concerns of Chinatown. Most of you are aware that Chinatown is one of the most stable neighborhoods in this city, and it has been in existence for 130 years. Since I live in Chinatown, I have witnessed all the effects that Chinatown has experienced from urban renewal projects for the past 48 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 40 years. Our neighborhood is a constant construction site, and we are always asked to sacrifice for the betterment of these institutional projects. In the '60s, Chinatown faced urban renewal projects which tore down homes and businesses on the east side of 9th Street for Independence Mall Unit 4 and the proposed 9th Street ramp. In the '70s we were confronted by the Vine Street Expressway, which caused displacement of more homes and businesses on the south side of Vine Street and, more importantly, the state threatened to demolish the Holy Redeemer Church and School for highway ramps. In the '80s again more homes and businesses were demolished on 9th Street for the Center City Commuter Rail Tunnel. In the '90s homes, businesses, and parking were lost on the west side of 11th Street for the Pennsylvania Convention Center. As a result, the core of Chinatown has now been cut back to four blocks. 49 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 When they built the Convention Center, the community was advised to expand to the north, across the Vine Street Expressway. And with little or no choice we went north. PCDC took the giant step and crossed the Expressway and built a planned urban development at 9th and Vine Street with 51 new homes. This development took nine years to build. Hin Wey Yu is now known nationally as a development that won the Maxwell Aware for Excellence in community development from the Fannie May Foundation. PCDC has a comprehensive plan for the growth and development of Chinatown. We are now ready to start construction of more housing at 9th and Wood Streets as Phase 2 of Chinatown North. PCDC has started Phase 3, which is a community center at 10th and Vine Streets. 44 acres in Chinatown North has been rezoned by City Council from industrial to commercial and has been designated for the growth of Chinatown. Building a baseball stadium across the street with impede the implementation of our 50 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 plans. This in direct conflict with the Council's direction in rezoning this area. When pCDC started development to the north of the Expressway, it served as an impetus for development of the entire area, developers already investing in the area, with condo loft structures and other investments taking place. A charter school is planned for 1209 Vine Street. If the city builds the stadium at the proposed Vine Street site, one can easily understand why our neighborhood's growth will be stunted. We are not against building a stadium. (Audience reaction)
The union will get the jobs regardless. But, remember, the Phillies don't even want to be there. The community doesn't want them there. The stadium will, without a doubt, disrupt the community. This project will also stunt the growth of Chinatown and the traffic will be such 51 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 that no one will want to come near the area. Major street changes are planned. Callowhill Street and 12th Street will be closed. 13th Street will be widened to become a two-way street. Street closings and changes in traffic patterns will affect our already congested area. The cost figures we are hearing are astronomical. They keep growing to the point where they are double what they should be. Extra costs incurred for the three major factors involved with this site, the acquisition, the relocation, the environmental problems, and the Reading viaduct, and the PECO substation, the SEPTA substation, add approximately 373 million additional dollars at this 11th Street site. Someone has to pay. We believe that eventually the citizens of Philadelphia will end up paying. The average citizen is looking at the basic needs of our communities. The ballpark is icing on the cake for most people, as most families cannot afford the luxury of frequently going to games. 52 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 City Council should take careful consideration what actual cost figures will be. They should also take into consideration the taxes lost from the displaced persons and businesses on the 11th Street site. (Applause.)
The displacement and relocation problems will also cause a minimum of a two-year delay, which has already been stated, adding additional costs to the budget. And at the same time costs of inflation will be also added to the budget and can easily amount to well over $30 million more. Chinatown is constantly told that we will benefit greatly from the spin-offs. We doubt this very much. We foresee more traffic congestion in this area. The city must take into consideration that there are four new hotels in the immediate area and plans are underway for the expansion of the Convention Center on Race Street to Broad Street. Chinatown will become an accessory parking zone for the stadium. And, incidentally, Garage C in the plan, south of Vine Street, will be 53 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 built in Chinatown and cause more displacement. This will do nothing for the residents and businesses of our community and, in fact, cause people to avoid the area, resulting in an economic hardship on our businesses. Moreover, Chinatown is more than a collection of restaurants. Chinatown is a neighborhood with families, churches, temples, daycare centers, and more. (Applause.)
I as a taxpayer cannot understand why the citizens of Philadelphia, with all our needs an problems, should allow this to happen. I call on all Council Members to say no, we are not buying anything we can't afford. Furthermore, it should not be built on the most expensive site, with the most expensive price tag, that will cost the taxpayers twice as much as it should. We'd like to buy the Mercedes, but the fact of the matter is we can only afford the Ford. Thank you. (Applause.) 54 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Albright, I want to take our attention back to the parking discussion. You mentioned that there would be $20,000 per space; is that correct?
Has there been any conversation with the Phillies to determine their specific or exact needs around parking spaces?
Again, for purposes of this analysis, all I can try to do is lay out for you what the questions are. But that's what I say. This is the life blood to the Phillies. In other words, if they don't have 55 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 adequate onsite or near-site structured parking, they can't in the end provide the kind of attractive site to the premium-ticket payer that they are trying to attract. So you need to ask the Phillies what it is they really need. All I can tell you is, assuming that that need is for something in the neighborhood of 4500 spaces, 20,000 is probably a reasonable cost estimate.
And assuming that the city makes the investment, where do those parking revenues go?
Again, I don't want to wade in where I don't belong, but that's a matter between the teams and the city to negotiate.
You are welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam 56 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Chair. I just have one question. Mr. Albright, on or 3 of your testimony under Site Acquisition and Demolition, at the bottom, total estimated costs would include demolition and environmental remediation costs of $15 million, and business/residential relocation assistance another miscellaneous cost, an additional 7.5. As it relates to the residential relocation assistance, is there a formula that is being used in addition to what I assume, when the adjusters -- or the appraisers go out, rather, they would typically use a fair market value as part of their analysis. My experience with relocation mainly has to do with new housing construction in my district. And I know there is a government set of standards for what the property owners are entitled to do when it comes to relocation and how they are made whole. Is that same criteria used in the scenario where it is a commercial development, as opposed to federal acts that we are bound by, or mandated by? 57 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
The only thing I can say is yes, but we were probably conservative. And, again, I will be the first one to admit that in the end of the day, these costs will probably be higher than we anticipated them to be. But we didn't want to at any time be accused of overstating what the potential costs might be. And this is probably one of the biggest areas where we tried to -- if we were going to error, error on the conservative side. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So, again, if I understand you correctly, those numbers were gathered basically by doing strictly fair market value based on assessment of what comparables are in the community today.
Correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Not looking at what the potential for the development of that community is if stadiums weren't being built.
That's correct. And, again, the emphasis on today, not what they might be one or two years down the road. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 58 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
You are welcome. Are there any other questions of Mr. Albright? Thank you very much, sir.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. Pete Matthews, President, AFSCME District Council 33.
I am Wayne Johnson, Secretary/Treasurer of District Council 33.
Thank you, Council President Verna, members of City Council, for allowing me to present testimony at this hearing. As I stated in testimony before City Council last March on this same matter, our unions are not opposed to building stadiums. I want to 59 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 make that clear from the start. I also want to make it clear that we are not here today to pick a fight with my brothers and sisters in the building trades union. I hope they get to build stadiums, housing, hotels, and anything else that needs to be built as a result of booming national economy and Philadelphia's resurgence as a vibrant and growing city. Nor are we hear to pick a fight with those who are opposed to building stadiums because of what they see as a negative impact on their particular neighborhood. These citizens also have a right to be heard, and we should give them respect by listening to their concerns. I would also hope that at some point in the future many more members of our union would be able to afford the cost of attending events at these sports facilities. As it stands right now -- (Applause.)
As it stands right now, with the sacrifices in wages and benefits that they have made over the last eight years, our union 60 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 members are more concerned with feeding, clothing, sheltering, and educating their children than they are in watching sports teams compete. (Applause.)
No matter where you locate a stadium, it is something that I believe should be made with strong input from the communities within the city and which are most likely to be directly impacted. Many of our union members live in the communities that are being discussed as possible locations. And I can tell you that there is little support for building a facility that will destroy the character of any neighborhood in the city. I commend you for holding this hearing in order to hear from your constituents. You probably will also hear testimony from stadium supporters about all of the economic benefits the city will derive from a new sports stadium. I have no way of verifying the validity of those claims. I hope they are true, though. Because anything that adds to the tax base of this city is obviously going to be something that 61 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 our union favors. It is on the matter of how to finance the stadiums where I have sincerest concerns. As you are no doubt aware, our union is in the process of negotiating what we hope will be a fair contract for city workers. The fact that the contract covering the members of AFSCME District Council 33 expires on June the 30th should be of concern to the citizens of Philadelphia and to City Council. (Applause.)
Nobody, least of all our members, want to see garbage piling up in the streets or vital city services like water and sewer stopped as the result of a strike by city workers as we approach the start of the Republican Convention in July. Our members would much rather have a fair contract and a very calm summer. The resolution of a fair contract with city workers, however, is dependent on the willingness of the Street Administration to acknowledge the contributions made by our members toward that economic recovery the city now enjoys. So far I have seen no evidence of a 62 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 willingness on the part of the city's negotiators to acknowledge the contributions made by our union members. In fact, the city's negotiators are acting like it is 1992, not 2000. (Applause.)
Just this morning we only had the fourth formal negotiation session since we entered into this process. The Administration's negotiators presented us with their first wage proposal for the first time. What they presented us was an insult to the dedicated and hard-working members of our union. In fact, the rate proposal was a disgrace. With the city enjoying a $200 million budget surplus, and the Mayor trying to figure out a way to spend a billion dollars to build sports stadiums, all they had to offer the members of District Council 33 was two $500 bonuses in the first two years and two backloaded raises of 2 percent in the last two years of the contract. (Audience reaction.)
That amounts to less 63 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 than 1 percent spread out over four years. This insulting offer comes after months, literally months, of our union's willingness to find a way to reach a settlement that would be fair to our members and for the taxpayers of the city. Now, after several years of wages, freezes, backloaded wage increases that are still lagging behind the rate of inflation, and work rule changes that save the city tens of millions of dollars, this is what they offer as a fair contract proposal. They have the nerve to tell us at the negotiating table that we can't ask for decent wages because they need $20 million for schools and another $18 million to solve management programs at the Philadelphia Gas Works, and God only knows what else. But a decent wage increase is out of the question. They must be crazy to think that I would bring this offer to our membership, or, worse yet, that our members would accept it. (Audience reaction.)
In addition to this 64 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 insulting wage offer, the Street Administration is still insisting that they want to take away our health and welfare fund. On a matter of turning over control of our health and welfare fund to the city, I only have three things to say; no, no, and hell no. 8 (Applause.)
No, because in the last eight years the city has already short-changed our health and welfare fund by over $50 million in contributions. Turning over total control to the city would only result in a cut of our benefits. No, because our union has spent the last three and a half years, since I took over as President, getting our financial house in order, solving the J.F. Kennedy Hospital problem so that it won't be a part of these negotiations, and it is not, and making sure that our members didn't lose any benefits in the process. And hell no, because we just don't trust this Administration, not to mismanage the funds to the point where our benefits our members now have as a result of bargaining for benefits in lieu of wages will be reduced our eliminated. 65 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Given their record so far on the School District, PGW, Disney project, the piers on Delaware, and the stadium deals, we have to be insane to agree to let our benefits plan be managed by this Administration. (Applause.)
Given the actions of the Street Administration this last week, I can't help but wonder if the Mayor is deliberately trying to provoke our union into a strike. I can think of no other rational reason to explain his recent actions. We have said that we do not want a strike. What Mayor John Street evidently fails to realize, though, is that our union membership is united and we will strike if he continues to make these outrageous and insulting demands, instead of settling a fair contract. I expect before the end of these negotiations, the Street Administration will try to pit our public employee unions against the building trades unions over who should get a piece of the budget surplus in our negotiations, if our negotiations continue to insist it doesn't really exist. 66 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Our members, through the sacrifices that they have made over the last eight years, have earned a right to a decent wage increase and a decent benefit package, just like our brothers and sisters in the building trades earned their wages and benefit. That is all we are looking to get in these negotiations. We must not allow any employer, public or private, to pit one group of workers against another against another. I was told early on in these negotiations -- (Applause.)
I was told early on in these negotiations by Mayor John Street himself, in fact, that the city was interested in settling with a fair contract, and that no part of the city's budget surplus was going to be used for stadium financing. I have wanted to believe the Mayor when he expresses the position. However, the demands that his negotiators have been making lead me to believe that he will say anything and do anything to get whatever he wants, and that his word 67 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 is definitely not his bond. (Applause.)
I would caution my brothers and sisters in the building trades and the members of the business community who support building stadiums to be very careful about making Mayor Street's promises -- about taking Street's promises at face value. This is why I am here today to remind City Council that they need to settle a fair contract with city workers before committing to any budget -- excuse me, before committing any of the budget surplus to financing stadium construction. As I told you back in March, our members of District Council 33 sacrificed wages, benefits, and work rule changes over the course of the last eight years to produce the city's $200 million budget surplus. They have earned the right to a fair contract. And that, above all else, should be a priority for this city. Our union is concerned that the Mayor's rush to put a financing package together to build sports stadiums will cause pressure on City 68 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Council to authorize committing funding from the budget surplus for what appears to be a project that is escalating in cost every day. How can you rationally consider a stadium financing deal, when you don't know where it will actually be built and what the real figure for building it will be? The fact of the matter is, you can't. It would be fiscally irresponsible to commit any part of the city's budget surplus to a stadium deal before the location and actual costs are resolved, and our contracts are settled. In my view, there is no reason beyond the Mayor's self-imposed deadline for City Council to rush into a decision to commit to building to a funding plan for building a stadium. With that in mind, I would ask you on behalf of members of District Council 33 to hold off on making any financial commitments until the Street Administration has reached a fair contract settlement with our union and with the other unions representing city workers. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. And I would be happy to answer any 69 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 questions. Thank you. (Applause.)
Are there any questions from members of the committee? Thank you, Mr. Matthews.
Mr. Chung. Is Mr. Chung in the audience? Mr. Chung, may I ask you to wait just a moment until the people who are leaving can do so quietly, because we will not be able to hear you.
Just a minute, sir. Those who are leaving, please do so quietly. Thank you. Any private conversations to my left, please do so in the corridor. Mr. Chung please identify yourself for the record and proceed. (Mr. Leung testified through an interpreter.)
My name is Cheung Ping Leung. I am the President of the 70 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Chinese Benevolent Association in Philadelphia Chinatown. CBA is an umbrella organization for ten family associations in Chinatown, as well as a major organization representing Chinese businesses in Chinatown. I am also the main organizer of the Philadelphia Chinatown Coalition to oppose the stadium, a coalition of over Chinatown-based 11 organizations s who have joined together to oppose 12 the destruction of our community. 13 On June 8, for the first time since 14 World War II, we called for a business shutdown of 15 Chinatown, and some 2000 of us marched to City Hall 16 to speak with one voice. 17 (Applause.) 18
I choose to testify in 19 Chinese today because the process of this city has 20 made it almost impossible for those most affected by those decisions to have any voice in these proceedings. Nothing has been translated for our people, even though a large segment of the most affected community speaks English as a second 71 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 language. But we refuse to be silenced. We will claim our right to speak. We say no to the stadium in Chinatown. We say no to the use of public money in this way. We are tired of the politicians and the media who try and make it sound like the businesses in Chinatown all support this insane proposal. Our community of 4,000 residents, one-quarter of them children, has no public school, no public park, no public library, no recreation center, no public health services, yet we have tax-paying businesses and taxpayers. (Applause.)
What public monies have gone into Chinatown? The only public money we have seen spent in Chinatown has been used to build the Vine Street Expressway, the commuter rail tunnel, the Independence Mall, the Gallery, and the Convention Center. All these projects are designed to make it more convenient for tourists and 72 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 suburbanites to get to the city and also to leave the city. What have you done for those who have stayed, put down roots, fought to maintain businesses and raise families in the face of this kind of onslaught? Before you build a stadium anywhere in Philadelphia, build a school for our children so they do not have to travel over one and a half miles simply to attend their so-called neighborhood school. Don't tell us that's different money from different sources. We know that this is a game of politics, of those with money making decisions informed by how much profit they can make, but not how much good it will bring this society, this city. (Applause.)
I am a simple man. I work in my restaurant about 14 hours a day, 6 days a week. I know what it is to sweat and to struggle and to dream. I struggle now, not just for my family or for myself, but for the entire community. 73 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 And the same perseverance that the Chinese people have always relied on to survive here in America will be brought to this struggle. To all the elected officials who must look at themselves in the mirror every morning and ask themselves have they done the right thing for the people of this city, I ask you to think carefully. In Chinese we have a saying, a person accused by a thousand people needs no disease to end his days. If you decide to spend money in this way, you will stand accused. Not by a thousand people, but by hundreds of thousands of people whose health and welfare you have been given the sacred charge to protect and to serve. The morale decision is clear. You must never allow the stadium to be built in Chinatown. (Applause.)
Excuse me, Mr. Leung, please. Would you conclude your statement. Because we have other witnesses that would like to be heard, and they have to leave. Thank you. 74 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 I think everybody would like the opportunity to be heard. Please proceed.
What we are trying to fight for is not only going to impact Chinatown; it is going to impact the rest of Philadelphia. And we want support from all of the rest of Philadelphians to stand up against this stadium thing. And I also want to mention that 10,000 signatures have been presented to Council President. And this has all been collected, and we are still collecting more. So I encourage everybody to sign those petitions. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Professors Zimbalist and Rosentraub. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Please identify yourself for the record. PROFESSOR ANDREW ZIMBALIST: Andy Zimbalist. I am an Economics Professor at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts. PROFESSOR MARK ROSENTRAUB: Mark 75 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Rosentraub, Professor at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: If we may, we each have a brief introductory statement. Can we proceed?
Thank you. Please do. PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: I am here to tell you that if your plan is to build a stadium anywhere in the city in order to expand your tax base or to create more jobs in Philadelphia, that you are going to be sorely disappointed. In the economics profession, it is very rare that we can generate a consensus of opinion amongst the people who have studied a particular issue. In the case of the economic impact of stadiums, we have not only a consensus, but we have a unanimity. Every single empirical study that has been done by independent economists has come to the conclusion that you cannot anticipate a positive economic kick from building a sports facility. It is difficult for some people to 76 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 accept that reality because sports, of course, plays a very large part in our culture. The fact of the matter is that sports teams are small businesses. And having a sports team in your city or having a new stadium in your city fundamentally restructures the nature of spending, it does not create new spending. The vast majority of funds that will be spent at a new Phillies stadium will be substituted for other kinds of spending that would happen in the greater Philadelphia area. People will go to the Phillies park and spend more money on more expensive seats, instead of going to bowling alleys and restaurants and movie theaters. It will be money spent in one part of the city, rather than another part of the city. It will also be true that of the tens of millions of extra dollars that go to the Phillies from a new stadium, that something like 60 percent of that money will go to the players, vast majority of whom do not live in the Philadelphia area. Another large chunk of the money will go to the owners, who are very high-income 77 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 individuals and spend a lot of money outside of Philadelphia and also have very high savings rates, where the money enters the world's money markets and does not get respent in the Philadelphia area. Therefore, the extra money that gets spent at a new stadium will leak out in much greater proportion, leak out of the Philadelphia economy, than would that money if it were spent in locally owned business activities, at bowling alleys, movie theaters, and restaurants, and so on. Finally, if the City of Philadelphia is being looked at to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to this project, you also have to face down the road that there is going to be a budgetary hole created by the project. If you bonded in the initial period, you will have to finance that through sales taxes or other revenue sources. Those sales taxes and other revenue sources take money away from the citizens and lower their spending. That is offsetting any positive impact that could occur because of the stadium. On balance then, if you put these factors together, you discover that in every single 78 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 instance between the 1950s and through the 1990s, stadiums do not promote economic development. They could perhaps be justified on other grounds. They could be justified on social or cultural grounds, but they cannot be justified scientifically on economics grounds. It is also true that when there is a new stadium proposed by a team, invariably they assemble a coalition of people who want the stadium to be built. And they go out and they hire a consulting firm to do an economic impact study. And those economic impact studies, which are hired out, always come to the conclusion that they will generate thousands of jobs. Those studies invariably are flawed methodologically, they make unrealistic assumptions, and they are not to be trusted for a moment. Finally, there is the issue of whether or not, if there is no net economic activity generated for the larger metropolitan area, there is the issue about whether you couldn't relocate economic activity from some parts of the city to another. And you can do that in certain instances. 79 RESOLUTION NO.
000325 But you would have to bear in mind that when you are talking about building a baseball stadium, which is used 80 to 85 days a year, for 4 hours each of those days, and it takes up a large space, that's not the kind of area that somebody wants to place a restaurant next to or somebody wants to put a retail clothes store next to. Not a place that's being used for 4 hours a day, 80 or 85 days a year. ) PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: You also have to bear in mind, in addition to the factors that have already been brought up this afternoon, you have to bear in mind the potentially negative consequences of congestion in an area. " That can hurt local businesses. ) PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: I am not a resident of Philadelphia, and I don't pretend to tell you where the best place is to build a 80 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 stadium. And I don't even pretend you to tell you whether you should use public subsidies to build one or not. I only caution you that this should not be done if your goal is economic development.
Thank you. (Applause.) PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: Madam President, Council, I want to add a couple of points to a few other issues related to how one finances a facility in the value of a Philadelphia market. One of the points that's being lost in conversation is that Philadelphia is one of the best markets for sports in the United States. Both of the teams can earn more money in profits here than they can elsewhere. And before one even raises the question about whether or not a subsidy is needed from the City of Philadelphia, the issue has to be raised in terms of how the teams can perform and what their profits can be in this market. Because it really is the fourth to fifth largest market for professional sports in the United States. A great deal of what you hear from 81 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 the teams frequently involves the averages of what goes on across America. But you have to recognize that Philadelphia is not part of the average. This is not a city like Indianapolis or Nashville or Birmingham. This is one of the largest markets, with over 7 million people in the Metropolitan area, and this is where sports teams want to be. I raise this because it is an important question that always comes up when cities negotiate with teams, for the fear is that the teams might leave the area. I want to put to rest in a statement I prepared and left with Councilman Cohen's office that there is no market that the Philadelphia Phillies could move to that would permit them to earn as much money as they can earn in the City of Philadelphia. So the issue about whether or not the team would ever leave here should be taken off the agenda. That won't happen. And as regards the Eagles, if the lesson to be learned, for example, from the new England Patriot situation is, the Eagles themselves 82 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 can't leave Philadelphia. The bargaining doesn't have to take place in the context that, if we don't meet their demands and provide subsidies, that the teams themselves will leave the area. So that has to be --
Excuse me, sir. Would you mind elaborating why the Eagles could not leave? PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: The markets available right now for the NFL probably include, for example, Birmingham, which has on various occasions said that it would build a fully subsidized facility, or Los Angeles, which, of course, is the largest market without an NFL team. You do know, of course, that the City of Los Angeles refused to build a subsidized stadium for the team, the Council voted that down. As a result, the expansion franchise went to Houston. There is an effort underway right now being led by an individual to bring a team to Los Angeles, on the condition that he would have some role in the ownership of that team, because the facility will have to be privately financed. 83 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 That would mean, for example, if the Eagles were to go and accept the invitation, that would exists in Los Angeles, that Mr. Laurie would have to sell a portion of his team to this other individual, hence it wouldn't be as valuable to him as staying in Philadelphia. If he were to try to go to Birmingham, we would expect what would happen would be the same scenario that happened when the Patriots tried to move to Connecticut. It is no in the media interest for another NFL team to go to a very small market. 9 billion. And the media partners, the networks that purchased that, purchased that to have teams in the largest area. Moving from Philadelphia to Birmingham would obviously, from their perspective, be a loss of money. And, again, we have think about the question of the Phillies, the only markets open for major league baseball teams are much, much smaller than Philadelphia. 84 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 If the team, for example, were to do as the Minnesota Twins debated for some time, about moving to North Carolina, North Carolina as a state is smaller than the metropolitan area of Philadelphia, and it also does not have the same concentration of wealth. So there is just no other market that the teams could move to. And, again, this is a critical element in bargaining. Because there really becomes no reason to deal from the position of weakness or blackmail, because the city is in fact the desired location. And I have some tables that will take you through this, if you want to debate it. The other question that I want to make sure that people keep front and center here is, how much money the teams can earn even if, in fact, they don't receive any subsidy from the City of Philadelphia. And I think that's critical. There are two models that I present for you, one for the Phillies and one for the Eagles. For the Phillies, with payrolls, if they would elevate their player payrolls to as high 85 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 as $80 million, the models that I have developed still indicate that the team could earn in excess of percent per year on operating expenses, not to 5 imagine the capitalized expense, if they themselves 6 financed $275 million for a baseball stadium. 7 For the Philadelphia Eagles, they 8 could handle in excess of $215 million of the cost 9 of the stadium and still generate a double-digit 10 return. So, in effect, if the City of Philadelphia helped the teams, because the teams are important assets, and facilitated the development of plans and programs to have the teams here and build two new stadiums, both could be built without any tax dollars whatsoever from the City of Philadelphia. ) PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: And I want to underscore this to make sure that the Council keeps this mind. Both teams could still earn in excess of 10 percent per year returns on operations. This does not deal with what the return would be and the value of the assets when the teams in fact are sold. 86 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Lastly, let me touch on one other point. 25 that you have increased the profitability that the owner of the team will realize when that team is sold.
In other words, if in fact you provide about $85 million in cash subsidy to the team, you can rest assured that that will mean about a $100 million increase in the value of the team which will accrue to the current owners. Both the Indians and the Rangers were sold within five years of the subsidies that those communities provided, and both of those owners recognized gains well in excess of $100 million as a result of the subsidies provided. When you realize, again, the strength of the market of Philadelphia, you tie it together with the points that Professor Zimbalist has made about economic development, you realize how much 87 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 return these teams are currently making, you add to that the fact that the state has already agreed to provide $85 million in subsidy for each facility, if you put any tax money towards it, which you are simply doing is increasing the value of the franchises for the owners, which will in turn create new profits for some of the most wealthy individuals in your community. We would be happy to answer any questions you have got.
Just for everybody's knowledge, I had a lot to do with picking these two witnesses because I wanted to have witnesses who were nationally and even internationally recognized for their objectivity and for their expertise. And I wish, Dr. Rosentraub, why don't you tell us a little bit about your background. Why should the people of Philadelphia be interested in your analysis? PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: I have been studying --
I understand that you are all very modest. Because Dr. Rosentraub 88 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 merely referred to himself as a Professor. But I think he has written enormous amounts. I was going to try to make a brief reference to it. I can't, because of the volume of it. And I wanted everybody to know that with respect to both Dr. Zimbalist and Dr. Rosentraub, that they are recognized throughout the world as the premiere economists, and with special expertise in the stadium field. And will you tell us a little bit about your background. How did you get interested in the sports stadium issue? What drove you to that? PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: I have been studying the issue of relationship between cities and sports, unfortunately, for years. I wish it 19 wasn't quite that long. 20 I began as a sports fan, interested 21 in it, tied it to my academic interests. I think 22 between Professor Zimbalist and I, we can safely say 23 we have published more books, probably about 50 24 articles, maybe more than that, on issues around the 25 country. 89 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 I have worked for several cities, including Los Angeles, Indianapolis, St. Louis at the current time in negotiations with the Cardinals, had opportunity to work with Seidel here and his staff. I have been involved in some national bids in terms of the International Olympic Committee.
Dr. Zimbalist. PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: I would just say ditto. I have written a lot and consulted a lot with cities, and I don't care to go into the details of my publications.
Well, I could understand why, they are so voluminous and so widespread in the substance they carry. Thank you. Councilman Ortiz.
Yes. Professor Zimbalist, I am very impressed by your speech. And you said that usually the proponents of stadiums go out and get consultants to write studies that they make. The Camden Yards Stadium has been put forward as sort of a shining example of an economic engine and contributor to the job mechanism and 90 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 contributing to the tax base of the City of Baltimore. Is that the reality, or is that the fiction? PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: There is a study in a book that I did with Roger Knowell on the Camden Yards situation, which concludes that it was not a good economic development -- a good economic investment. One of the things that you should bear in mind, if you hear anybody during the course of your deliberations on this matter refer in rosy terms to Camden Yards, is Camden Yards is the very first example of the new genre of ballparks, the retro ballpark with all of the new revenue-generating accoutrements. Camden Yards relocates the Baltimore stadium from the north side, in an area where there was no highway access at all, to the south side of the city, right off of the main highway access and artery to Washington D.C., a 40-minute drive from Washington D.C. By relocating the stadium from the north side, to the south side, they essentially 91 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 annex the sixth or seventh largest media market in the United States. That is not something that you are going to be able to do in Philadelphia. You are also not going to be able to build the first example of a new architectural genre; that was done by Camden Yards. You are also not going to be able to create the curiosity effect which brought thousands and tens of thousands of people from around the country to see Camden Yards as this new architectural example. And it was also done as part of a much, much larger economic redevelopment investment plan for the wharf area in downtown Baltimore. So you put all of those things together and you still find that Camden Yards wasn't a good economic development, a good economic investment. You are not going to get a good economic investment from a stadium, whether you build it in Chinatown or elsewhere in Philadelphia. And I repeat. If you want to do it for cultural or social reasons, then that's one 92 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 thing. Don't do it because you think it is going to generate jobs. (Applause.) PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: By the way, if I might just piggyback quickly on something that Mark Rosentraub said. You know, Philadelphia is the fourth largest media market in the United States. The three largest ones in baseball all have two teams; Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. Philadelphia is the largest media market in the United States in baseball that has one team. The Phillies are not going to leave Philadelphia. They would never even contemplate leaving Philadelphia. And if they tried to, Major League Baseball needs a three-quarter vote to permit them to, and would never let them. (Applause.) PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: Let me add one other point which I think sometimes gets lost when you deal with the conversation with the Phillies and the request for the subsidy. Is that the Phillies, as Andy pointed 93 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 out, are playing in the fourth largest market with no competition. And, yet, among their colleagues, other major league baseball teams, the Phillies are the poorest performing franchise over a period of -- (Applause.) PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: -- this is by straight won/loss records -- over a 100 year period. Now, if you say that that's a business that needs a subsidy, I want you just to think it through in economic terms. You are talking about a business that is largely a cartel, has free access to the largest market available to it, and has still been underperforming now for 100 years, but argues that it needs a subsidy to continue. Something, in effect, doesn't make sense. (Applause.)
And I know that I may not get to both of you in terms of to answer all the questions on here. But it says here from this study that was ordered by the task force of the Philadelphia 94 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Convention and Visitor's Bureau, it says that the total impact of a Center City ballpark will be 417 million, an 82 percent increase over the current impact of Veteran's Stadium according to a study by Arthur Anderson, LLPD. Center City ballpark would generate an additional 11.8 million annually in tax revenues and 8.3 million for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, compared with Veteran's Stadium. Now, there is no sustaining data to this. They are just statements that be being made. A Center City ballpark would generate 5,644 new permanent jobs, 1,172 more than the South Philadelphia sport complex, according to the same study. Spending levels increase significantly in cities with downtown stadiums, as opposed to other locations. Baltimore, Denver, Cleveland, versus Arlington Texas. Fans would spend over $104 million annually outside the stadium in Center City, 35.3 million more than they would outside a new ballpark at the sports complex. The hospitality industry, lodging, restaurant, and retail, would be the primary 95 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 beneficiary of the 104 million in out-of-stadium spending. (Audience reaction.)
PKF reports hotel occupancy gains in Baltimore and Denver following the opening of the downtown stadiums, officials from Convention and Visitor's Bureau in Baltimore, Cleveland, and Denver, clearly note the impact of their new downtown stadiums on the industry. Can both of you comment on those statements? PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: The last thing that you mentioned I think is noteworthy. You say, "officials clearly note." These are the same officials who sponsored the projects. All they are doing is saying that they were right to spend public money on them. You know, what one would have to do, Arthur Anderson is one of the main consulting firms that gets hired to do another, Deloitte and Touche is another, and Peat Marwick is another. What one would have to do -- I have done it in the case of Boston and I have done it for some other cities -- is to go through the study and 96 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 point out where they make assumptions that are unrealistic. The methodology that they use is an input/output methodology. It uses affixed coefficients from technology that existed in the 1980s. They make many assumptions along the way that produce these results. It is very hard a priori to project, to build any kind of a model to project what's going to happen. It is very easy, however, post hoc to look at a new stadium that's been introduced into a new city, control for other variables about the area of economy, and see whether or not, controlling for those other variables, the city received an economic boost from the stadium. And as I said before, all of the empirical studies that we have from the 1950s forward unanimously conclude that there is no 22 economic boost. So if people and the City Council are persuaded by these public relations proclamations about thousands of jobs being created, it is 97 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 possible to approach somebody like Mark or myself or other people to do a critique and to explain to you detail by detail why that study is unreliable.
Go ahead. PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: Let me add one point also to what Andy is saying. When you read your quote, I think the critical element is that they used the word "economic impact." And what people have to realize is that, in the business of economic analysis, the words "economic impact" and "economic development" are two very different things. So, for example, the example I give to my students, if you left this meeting today and went down to your car, and somebody threw a brick through the window, that's going to create economic impact. But I don't that you are going to conclude that it is economic development. What you have to realize, when people say, for example, if you build a downtown stadium, there will be $104 million in economic impact, a lot of the impact that they are counting are the meals that people eat. 98 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Well, if the stadium is not built, the people are still going to eat those meals, but they may not eat them at that specific location. So it is a transfer of economic impact. Unless you were all going to commit to eating six meals a day, the fact that you are going to have economic impact of buying a shirt, eating a meal, spending money, it is moving it. Movement is impact. When I throw the brick through your car window, I will move money from your wallet to a glazier's wallet.
I hope you are not wearing a mask when you do that. PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: But I will not create any economic development. When you see in reports discussions about people staying in hotels -- and we have done these analyses -- there will be people staying in hotels. But there are people staying in hotels in Baltimore and in Cleveland all the time. In all the analysis that we have done, there will in fact probably be about a 10 percent rise in hotel occupancy. 99 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 That's good. No one here is telling you that it is bad. We want people to stay in hotels. What we are telling you is that, relevant to the tax money invested, this is a virtually negative return, it makes no economic sense. Especially when you ask the first question, are the teams profitable, can they operate and generate a profit without a subsidy. If the answer to that question is yes, they can, then why are we having this conversation? We ought to applaud -- (Applause.) PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: We ought to applaud and encourage the Eagles and the Phillies to build new stadiums. They ought to build them in Philadelphia because they can make a lot of money, and they will generate a lot of jobs. But it doesn't need to be subsidized. And if you subsidize it behind the mythology of economic impact -- I go back to the point, look at the sale of the Cleveland Indians or 100 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 the Texas Rangers -- will increase the wealth of the current owners by approximately $100 million. We have the evidence. We know what's going to happen. You don't have to do that analysis.
At $685 million in terms of stadium costs and climbing, as we have heard from before, the witness we had from the State Appropriations Committee, is that, in your experience, the most expensive stadium in the land, in the universe? PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: There is one in China that's actually -- PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: I think the most expensive one build to date is in Seattle, Safeco Field, is about $540 million. And there is a big struggle going on right now because they signed -- the Mariners signed a deal with the city that any cost overruns above a $440 million projection would be covered by the team. The price tag came in at 540, and now the Mariners say they are not going to pay the $100 million because it was mismanagement by the City 101 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Development Corporation, or its Stadium Corporation, that created the $100 million cost overrun.
That would never happen in Philadelphia. PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: It wouldn't happen here, no. 8 So there is a litigation. That is still up in the air. That $100 million cost overrun is actually a $200 million cost overrun because the initial projections that were made about $340 million. You are at that initial stage. When you hear $685 million, you are at the same stage that Seattle was at when they heard $340 million.
If you hear the $685 million amount, what increment or percentage would it be at the end of the building process, if there is -- PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: Let me tell you a story. I built a house. And the contractor give me a certain price that it was going to cost. And then at the end, I had to come up with about 12 percent more. I just use that as a case study. 102 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
In your experience with stadiums, what -- PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: to 40 cost 5 overruns above the initial estimates. 6 PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: There have 7 been some that have come in under. 8 But I think Andy is right, you have 9 to figure, this is a Herculean price tag that would 10 be very hard to, under any circumstances, to 11 justify. 12
Have you heard of 13 Philadelphia patronage? 14 Thank you, Madam Chair. 15
Thank you. 16 The Chair recognizes Councilman 17 DiCicco. 18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam 19 Chair. 20 I would just like to discuss the issue of stadiums, not necessarily location of 12th and Vine. Philadelphia, as you know, we have a stadium known as the Veteran's Stadium. There is some contractual agreements with the teams will have 103 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 to stay somewhere to the Year 2011. We have some obligations to continue to maintain that. Best estimates are that it will cost about $80 million for us to continue to maintain that. Comparing that to the cost of a new stadium, no matter where they are, it is relatively small in comparison. But I have heard some comments today from you that I am a little bit confused about. I think, Professor Zimbalist, you made mention of the fact that if we are going to do it for economic reasons, it doesn't really make sense to subsidize stadiums. But if you are going to do it for social and cultural reasons, is that such a bad thing to do? Doesn't the city get some public good, isn't there some public good that comes out of having a city the size of Philadelphia having major sports teams? Not everything we do, we can really put a price tag on, or to suggest that we will always get a greater return for our investment. 104 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 We subsidize many events in the City of Philadelphia. We subsidized the Mummers Parade, which I am a Mummer and I have been for 30-something years. I would venture to say that we probably don't get the return on that investment. But there is a certain amount of public good that goes with that that allows us to have some bragging rights, if you will, that we are a city. And cities have so many things going on all the time, that I think each of those components make this city a vibrant place. So cumulatively we may get a benefit, but we can't just put our finger on it and say, well, we got X amount of dollars because we did the stadium. It is the stadiums, it is the Academy of Music, it is the Art Museum, most of all that have some subsidies coming from us. And if you look at Fairmount Park, which I think it is the largest innercity park in the world, we the taxpayers fund that park system. (Audience reaction). COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It is not free, 105 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 because the taxpayers are paying for it. But there is some good, that public good that comes out of that. (Audience reaction.)
Please. We will respect each other. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: There is some public good that comes from having that park system. So the $15 million a year or so that Council appropriates for the Fairmount Park system, we really don't get any economic return on it in terms of saying it is profitable, but we get enjoyment from it. And if we are going to continue to promote ourselves as a city that has all kinds of things happening, cultural events as well as sports events, I think we also need to factor that in. And, again, it may not be a dollar return for a dollar investment. It may be -- I think there is a leak in a balloon around here. But, anyway, there may be some benefit to subsidizing sports facilities in general. I am kind of making a statement. And 106 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 I will ask you, one other thing, I heard you say earlier that it is draining money or taking money away from other activities by sports teams in general. According to everyone's estimation, 80 percent of the people who come to the teams are nonPhiladelphians. And I don't mean this to be sarcastic. But I heard you use the term saying, well, this is money that people would use to spend in other places, like going bowling. I just don't see somebody coming from Delaware County or Washington Township, coming to the City of Philadelphia -- and, again, I don't mean this to be sarcastic -- to bowl. But if they come to a game, they may go to a restaurant, they may take in something else in the meantime or during the time that they are here. I just don't see them not coming -- I don't see them coming to Philadelphia unless we have things to offer them. And I think sports facilities are another attraction for us to promote ourselves with. And I would just like some comment 107 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 on, do you take all of that into consideration when you make the statements that we, the city, shouldn't subsidize teams? I don't think you don't mean we shouldn't subsidize them at all. PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: I don't think I ever made that statement. Let me address both of the comments that you make. I tried to be very clear that I was saying, you shouldn't do this if you think it is going to promote economic development. You might want to do it for social or cultural reasons. It is not for me as an economist to come and tell you what kind of cultural benefit or social benefit you get from the Phillies and the Eagles. I do think, however, it is important to realize that there is a big difference between the Art Institute and your parks downtown and a new baseball stadium. ) PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: And it has to do with what Mark Rosentraub said a few minutes ago, which is that, if you build a new baseball stadium 108 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 for the Phillies, it is going to vastly increase the value of that franchise. And when it gets sold some day, it is going to sell for another 100 or 200 or 300 million dollars. In other words, the subsidy that you are making today is going to be privately appropriated some time in the future. That still doesn't say you shouldn't do it, but there is a major difference with the Art Institute because -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Can't we make the same arguments about hotels when we do TIF financing, to say at some point they could be more valuable than they were at the initial stage of construction or when it was first built? And I am not suggesting that someone who goes to baseball games -- there are people that go to baseball games who never walk into the Art Museum, and vice versa. That's market driven. People will choose where to go. And I think this is about giving people more choices to come into the city to spend their money. 109 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 And this is not about 12th and Vine. And I know what you are all hissing about. This is about sports facilities in general. PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: Look, you have to be much more specific.
You talk about TIF financing, you talk about tax credits that you might give to private industry, you talk about subsidies that you might give to some private industry. Most of the private industry that you referred to -- and we can go down it case by case -- is an activity that is going to actually generate jobs and generate development in the area, because they will produce things here that are sold elsewhere, they will bring new money into Philadelphia. That is not going to be the case for the Phillies. And I want to get to it that in a moment. I just want to say one other thing. When you are thinking about this issue of cultural and social impact, you should bear in mind that when you build a new stadium, you are gentrifying the stadium environment, you are creating a venue that will disproportionately cater 110 RESOLUTION NO. ) PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: -- and corporate interests who will buy the club seats and the luxury boxes. Almost invariably -- we haven't talked about financing yet -- but almost invariably the main source of financing these ventures is sales taxes. And sales taxes regress, they fall more heavily on lower-income groups. So what you are going to be doing is engaging in a massive income transfer from low-income groups to corporate interests, to high-income Philadelphians, and to the baseball players and the owners of the Phillies who will profit handsomely from this. I want to just quickly address the last comment you made, because it ought to be very clear. First of all, with regard to this claim that you say everybody makes, that 80 percent of the money spent in Veteran's Stadium comes from outside of greater Philadelphia, I'd like to see the studies. 111 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 The studies I have seen are all done with very faulty methodology. I won't go into the details at the moment. But usually they come out with figures between and 30 percent, not 80 6 percent. So I am very, very curious about this 80 7 percent figure. 8 But beyond that, I would not 9 maintain -- and I am sure that Mark Rosentraub would 10 not maintain -- that people don't come into the greater Philadelphia area to see the Phillies. I'm sure that they do. And that is new money. And if that's all that happened, there would be some promotion of development. But the other thing that happens is that there are a lot of leakages. The money that gets generated at the stadium goes to -- 60 percent to the ball players, and a large chunk of the rest goes to executives. These are not normal Philadelphian citizens. They either don't live here, or they live here and have very high incomes; high incomes where there is a larger tax bite that goes to Washington; high incomes generating much higher savings rates, 112 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 which means again that the money enters into the world's money markets, it doesn't recirculate in Philadelphia; and high incomes which means that they own homes or live in fact outside of Philadelphia and they vacation much more outside of Philadelphia. ) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But the one thing we have going for us in this case is we have a wage tax, and we at least get part of their wages. Which is bad for everybody else, but good for us in terms of -- PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: Look, the point is, first of all, you get the wage tax right now from the ballplayers anyway. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But we won't, if they leave; that's the point. PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: The money is being spent at the ballpark and not being spent at restaurants. It means the restaurants have fewer employees and, hence, smaller base for wage taxes on restaurant employees and bowling alley employees and 113 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 theater employees, and so on and so forth. PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: Councilman, let me go back to a point. I agree with basically everything that you were saying about the cultural benefits, the value of getting people to come in.
And when you go through each of these projects, you are right, it does get in a sense very confusing about how one makes rules about how you should make decisions. Because there is a cultural benefit about the Philadelphia Phillies and there is a cultural benefit about the Philadelphia Eagles. And that's where I tried to get public officials thinking about. The question is being, I think, asked, I think you are framing it just a little incorrectly, because I turn it around. If we had a business in Philadelphia that could earn as much as 95 percent profit on investment, is that a business that needs to be subsidized to generate income? And based on documents that the Philadelphia Phillies presented to the City of 114 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Philadelphia, it is possible to determine that the rate of return that they make varies between about percent and 95 percent. 5 So I would ask you this question, 6 Councilman: If a business can earn 20 percent 7 return per year, does it need to be subsidized 8 because it generates cultural benefits? 9 I think it is great. And let's take 10 it a step forward. 11 If the Phillies were to come forward 12 and say to you, "We want a subsidy. ) 20 PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: I agree. 21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You do agree? 22 PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: I do agree that they do that. All businesses do that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just got 30 tickets for some senior citizens in district free. 115 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 All of us get 30. You don't understand what I am talking about, unfortunately. PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: And I agree with you. I don't have anything negative to say about that. But if the Phillies are making 9 percent return per year, that is a responsibility 10 they have to the community. 11 And again, put this in context. 12 Councilman, this is a cartel that has received 13 antitrust exemption from the Congress. 14 And part of the question I have when 15 I sit down with major league teams, I say to them, 16 let's look at everything that you have been given by 17 this society. 18 You have got antitrust exemptions, 19 you have got special legislation that's been passed 20 by the Congress that creates, in effect, problems 21 for the state. What's your responsibility back to 22 the society? And if any team owner could come in and say, "I am losing money. I am literally losing 10 percent a year, 12 percent a year," I think your 116 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 points are quite valid. And, in fact, I would then probably argue as a sports fan we ought to subsidize the team. But when, in fact, we can show from the best data that we have got that the returns are in double digits, when we know from the sale of teams that these owners will recognize gains of in excess of $100 million, these are not activities that need to be subsidized. ) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Somebody handed me something. I will ask you the question if I can read it right. Can the city structure the deal to realize a portion of any capital gains received via a sale of the teams? PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: That comes from the ninth chapter of my book. Which, what I have urged cities to do, is that if in fact you are going to provide the subsidy -- I don't know who planted the question. I thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't know, either. 117 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: But what I have called it is asset value. It is an increment asset value off of TIF financing. That if you say, for example, we will put in $50 million, in exchange for which, when the team is sold, we get 50 percent of the increment value. If that were on the table, then it is a reasonable investment for the City of Philadelphia to look at, because you have an ownership interest. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. I would like to thank both of you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney. And I would just ask that the interpreter for Mr. Leung please stay in the room. I would like to bring her up to the table again. Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to go to the issue of 118 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 media market for a moment. But prior to that, I think what Councilman DiCicco was saying about the out-of-towners, so to speak, is that the way Philadelphia is set up, we have a great, as you may know or not know, is a great exodus of people from our innercity core into the surrounding suburban world and excerpts around the city. So that when we say out-of-towners, it is not as if I go, like I used to go -- and that was one of the points you made earlier -- to Baltimore every year when the stadium first opened. And now maybe I go every third year or every other year. These are people who you would genuinely consider to be metropolitan residence; however, because of purposes of county distinctions are really not Philadelphians for governmental accounting purposes. So I think what Frank is saying is, the numbers that come from the Eagles and Phillies is about 60 percent to 75 percent of their season ticket holders are in fact nonPhiladelphia residents, suburbanites. 119 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 And they are the people, again, higher income, they can afford the tickets, and they do come into the city. Anecdotally, I know many restaurant owners in South Philadelphia, just going on the issue of the Veteran's Stadium. And the argument being made by the Convention and Visitor's Bureau and others is that somehow a downtown stadium will generate this great synergy of spending in retail and other places, and restaurants. But the South Philadelphia merchant restaurateurs that I am aware of do get some benefit from the fact that Veteran's Stadium is in South Philadelphia. I mean, it is close to a place like Medora's Mecca, which is right almost on the grounds, to the Passyunk Avenue restaurants and those places. And I guess I think the same thing occurred to me during your testimony, was that these people are suburbanites who may be choosing, if not coming to a ballgame, to spend, to go to the mall in Deptford, and maybe patronize one of the restaurants 120 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 there while they are shopping. So while I agree with you that people are making leisure dollar choices, the fact that they come in on a Sunday for the game or come in on a Wednesday night for a game means that some of those leisure dollar choices are being made in Philadelphia, as opposed to in their own community. And I think that was the point. The media market question I have is one that hypothetically -- and I know there is a lot of issues relative to lease requirements, and the teams have ten years to go on their leases, and they can't get out of them -- if hypothetically the Eagles, for example, could find a way legally because of incompetence on the part of the city or things the city didn't do, to break that lease, to have that lease made invalid, hypothetically, if Governor Whitman were to say to the legislature, "Do you know what? These guys want to go. Why don't we see what we can do to sweeten the pot here in Camden, for example, along the waterfront, relatively inexpensive ground. " I agree with you that the Eagles and 121 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 the Phillies probably won't leave to go to Birmingham, probably won't leave to go to Indianapolis. But could they not in fact leave to go to Camden, and then still maintain the benefits of this fourth or fifth largest media market? And what happens with us is that, then I think we do lose the players' wage tax, the employees' wage tax, the sales tax, some of the other ancillary revenue that's to the city as a result of the fact that the stadiums, and more importantly the practice and duty days are conducted here in the city proper for wage tax calculation purposes. Couldn't they really move and have the best of both worlds, lower tax, more subsidy, and maintain the media market? PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: I think we both might want to touch on it a little bit. Let me take them in order.
For the Eagles it is a much -- it is more possible than it is for the Phillies. And I will get to that, why I conclude that. But that is a slight risk. I mean, 122 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 there is no question about it. " But, Councilman, now what we have to look at are some of the pragmatic issues that New Jersey faces. And when you analyze these questions, you can't analyze them in sort of a political vacuum like in a legal hypothetical. New Jersey right now faces a situation where the Jets and the Giants are both looking at different facilities and commitments that will have to be honored there. You are probably aware that the Mets are looking at building a new facility. The magnitude of the commitments that New Jersey is looking at relative to what they could do politically in this situation, I think we would fairly conclude that that's not really a very viable option. That, in fact, they might try to do something in infrastructure. But for you to enter into a negotiation with the Eagles saying, "Okay. I will buy what these academics say, they are not 123 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 going to pull out of here. I understand media contract," blah, blah, blah, but they are going to go to Camden without looking at all the pressures currently on New Jersey, and what the Governor in fact has said. And, in fact, if you remember back about months ago, she turned cold down the 9 proposal with the Yankees simply because she 10 couldn't deal with that and deal with current 11 professional sports teams that she is dealing with. 12 So again we come back and we answer 13 your question with regard to the Eagles. I don't 14 see a viable option in the real political context. 15 Because New Jersey now, having played with sports 16 game with New York, has lost so badly, that now is 17 in so deep with three teams, that they face a real 18 problem that they are trying to deal with. And they still have to deal with the Devils who you probably know have also asked for renegotiation and a new facility. So you bring the fourth team into it. Then to say, now let's deal with the Eagles also, I think you are probably well beyond what New Jersey tax payers would swallow. 124 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Back to the Phillies for a moment. The Phillies -- because, again, when you look at the financing in professional baseball -- I know Andy will want to touch on this -- they are far more dependent on the luxury seating, access to that crowd, the people who are going to buy the suites and buy the club seats. They need a downtown location or a location that has good access to where those workers are located and where those businesses are located. Camden moves them too far away. They have 81 days. Not like football, we have eight to ten, where they will drive down on a Sunday afternoon so it doesn't matter, they have 81 days to deal with, in some cases 83, if they want to play an exhibition game or two. They need proximity to mass transportation, other elements that are going to bring this crowd in. Camden is not a realistic option. In fact, if we study very carefully the financial situation of the Texas Rangers, the most successful team that did not locate in a 125 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 downtown area, they face some very difficult challenges getting the business community from the two Dallas and Fort Worth downtown areas to Arlington, which is still reasonably conveniently located. So in that context, when I put the whole package together, what I would advise you in terms of your negotiations, realistically, no, not going to happen. )
Does there exist an academic formula to plug in -- it may sound simplistic. Because one of the things, I believe, we are being asked to provide taxpayer subsidy. We need to look at this as any other business investment that we would provide subsidy to, and what this return on that investment is going to be to the taxpayers. Whether it is equity ownership or equity opportunities when it comes to the sale, whether it is some way to quantify exactly what the other ancillary spending is going to be. Is there some general formula to plug 126 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 these numbers in so that we know that when the subsidy is 100 million, and then it reaches 175, sorry, bell goes off, 175 don't work. Maybe 125 does, maybe 100 does. Is there some sliding scale formula that will give us better direction? Because basically what we are doing now is, we are listening to what the team's positions are. And they are obviously self-interested, and there is nothing wrong with that. We are listening to what the Administration wants, and that is to probably get this thing done from kind of a reputation standpoint, when the last Administration couldn't get it done. And we are balancing all these other issues, schools, infrastructure needs in the city, all this kind of stuff. Is there some way to plug in what the numbers -- when we finally get the numbers from the Administration -- what these numbers are and some ROI figure that comes in the end and says, do you know what, this is a good deal or it is a bad deal? PROFESSOR ZIMBALIST: I really think 127 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 that you have to look at these things case by case. There are so many variables that we still don't know about in the proposal that you are considering. Not only the costs of the final project, but we don't know what the lease agreement is going to be. We don't know if the city is going to take on any operating, maintenance, or improvement expenses at the ballpark. We don't know what kind of ongoing infrastructural maintenance expenses are going to be. We haven't heard yet estimates for additional sanitation and security expenses around the ballpark, what share of the rent that's generated at the ballpark is going to come back to the city, what kind of property taxes might or might not be paid. There are all sorts of questions we don't know about. So the notion that at this point in the game you could apply a formula, it is nice to think that we might be able to simplify it that much, but we can't.
Our problem is by the time -- what I am fearful of, by the time we 128 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 have some definitive idea of what the numbers actually are, the time frame is going to be so compressed that real due diligence analysis is not going to be possible in any great way. PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: You know, I understand the pressures you are under. Again, I have worked for a number of cities, as has Andy, on these kinds of negotiations. Let me come into, what the answer to your question is, with a deal, with numbers, with lease agreements, yes, the answer to your question is, yes, you can actually -- I have done it for Los Angeles, Andy has done it for others, if you have all the variables. The point I would say to you is, I understand the time pressures one is under. And what I am always amazed at is how much money in taxes people will, in effect, expend, 50 million, 60 million, 100 million dollars, and, in some cases, as Andy pointed out, we have King County Washington at well over half a billion dollars, yet they won't take the time and the effort to do exactly what you just said, how do we structure it and how do we know the rate of return. 129 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 What we tried to get across to you today is that there is nothing to fear that these teams will are leaving. One is, they have leases. And even if we assume that the leases can be dedeclared null and void tomorrow morning, there is no better place for these teams to go. So relax. Take the time to get the answers that you need. And as Andy has just pointed out to you, we could structure a lease. You already have one involving the Flyers and the Sixers, which in effect leaves the city at a point that I have concluded is basically you are at a cash deposit situation, if you function in any of the Councilman's intangible benefits. So when you say to me, can you do it, I say, you guys have done it. When I go around the country talking to cities about how to do this, the two examples I use, I use Philadelphia and your deal on the arena and Los Angeles and their deal on the arena and their deal on the NFL, they worked the numbers out. It didn't work.
But the First Union public investment was miniscule compared to 130 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 what is anticipated in this particular -- I am sure Mr. Snyder would love to have had the level of subsidy that these teams are asking for as it relates to the building of Spectrum 2. PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: Councilman, take the time to answer the questions to your satisfaction. You did it right before. You can do it right again. (Applause.) PROFESSOR ROSENTRAUB: And as I have said to you, based on the financial information that we have on the operation with the Cleveland Indians, based on the information that Fortune Magazine and other sources put together, we have enough information to ask the questions of the Phillies to say, "On our models, this is what you are worth. If our models are so bad, let's have the books." (Applause.)
Thank you. Gentlemen, thank you very much. I would ask the interpreter for Mr. Leung to please approach the please approach the 131 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 witness table. Is Mr. Leung still here? I did speak to you privately, but I want to say publicly, and certainly for the record, some people apparently thought that I was cutting Mr. Leung off when he was testifying. That was not my intent, nor did I want to be disrespectful to him. I indicated very early on that we have 132 witnesses on our list. And I thought, to be fair, we would limit people, with the exception of the witnesses that came from out of town and had to take a plane back this evening, that we would actually limit all witnesses to three minutes. So if you will -- INTERPRETER: Can I translate that?
Would you please. And please convey my apologies. If there is any reason for me apologize, I do apologize.
Excuse me, dear. I don't mean to interrupt you, but the stenographer would like you to identify yourself, please. 132 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
My name is Leyhar Cheung. I was translating for Cheung Ping Leung. And this is both our words, and our community's words. Is that a lot of times when you don't speak English, like when you are trying to communicate, people don't realize you have a heart, you have a history, you have a soul. Like you have so many stories that tell people that you are a human being. And in this country, when our language rights are violated, our human rights are violated. And we are used to that. (Applause.)
And we just want to thank you for the acknowledgment, and also recognize that a lot of other speakers here today are going to be speaking in Chinese and in English. And despite the time that it might take, it might take a little double time than the regular normal speech, a lot of their words, the essence of those words, have meaning. And they --
Okay. They need to be 133 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 heard. We need to be heard. We are not going to be quiet. And I think for the city's sake, this country is changing, the city is changing, and people have to accept it and accept that we are a part of it. We are just like you. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: John Vago.
My name is John Vago. I am a Mechanical Engineer in the Water Department and a shop steward in AFSCME District Council 47, Local 2187. In considering the issue of financing for new stadiums, I think we need to consider the factors which affect all workers, regardless of their occupation or where they work. My union and the others which represent city workers made sacrifices in past years to help the city's finances. Now we are being called upon to sacrifice so that city funds may assist the construction of new stadiums. The issue should not be whether or 134 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 not sports facilities should be built. What is the issue is whether or not city's funds should be spent to subsidize a private profit-making corporate enterprise, to provide corporate Welfare. (Applause.)
Many our new municipal services are understaffed. What effect will further sacrifice by city workers have on our ability to compete with our employers to adequately staff our operations? Our city and its working class have many unmet pressing needs; public schools, public housing, mass transit, public health facilities, neighborhood recreation and sports facilities, and many others. (Applause.)
Building facilities to meet these needs would not only provide a great many jobs to build them, but also jobs to operate and service them. As the parent of two young people who went through the Philadelphia public schools, I heard more times than I can remember, when we called for improvements in the public schools, "There's no 135 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 money." The problem is not money; this is still the world's richest country. But the priorities for allocating it need to be changed. (Applause.)
From all that I have heard thus far, the financial aspects of the stadium proposal are still quite unclear, its cost and the anticipated payback. That kind of a gamble with city funds, while other needs go unmet, would, in my opinion, be irresponsible. In addition, as the people in Chinatown have indicated, a Center City location would have disastrous effects on our city, destroying jobs and communities and further overloading already overloaded services. In recent years we have seen many major projects which were supposed to bring prosperity to Philadelphia. For Philadelphia's working class, where is that prosperity? It appears to me -- (Applause.)
It appears to me that one of the reasons why those who can are leaving the 136 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 city is the inadequacy of basic public services. What is this doing to the tax base? If the professional sports teams feel that they need new facilities, why shouldn't they practice the self-reliance, the nondependence on government handouts which we have all heard advocated as virtues for us? (Applause.)
All research and evidence tells us that the teams can build the new stadiums with their own revenue and credit, both of which are very substantial. The only reason they are seeking local government money is because they feel they can get it, and it will make them wealthier. Finally, for us to subsidize stadiums could create a dangerous precedent. It could encourage other private corporate interests to demand the same. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. Rosita Johnson. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Bihong Guan.
My name is Bihong Guan. I am the President of the Greater Philadelphia United Chinese American Chamber of Commerce. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce is strongly opposing the proposal of the stadium in Chinatown. We think Mayor John Street's recommendation is not acceptable, it is totally wrong, must be taken back. First, Mayor Street say there aren't two people who are not happy with that decision. That's not true. About 4,000 Chinese who live and work in Chinatown and 100,000 Chinese living and working in great Philadelphia area are not happy with Mayor Street's decision. We united and assured of a strong opposition to the decision. The May 19 and the June 8 rallies and protests, we have a good manifestation of our strong opposition to the stadium. Secondly, Mayor Street say a new 138 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 ballpark would attract about 45,000 people, again, to 81 games a year. That's three point million people bringing into the streets of Center City, and that would have attract customers to downtown eateries and the business. That's wrong. The games will bring a lot of hazard problems; such as, traffic, parking, trash, drink, drugs, and much more. The stadium will not bring any economic development to Center City and Chinatown. If the stadium built Vine Street, that will destroy our proud heritage, Chinatown. That will also kill our Chinese community. Third, Mayor Street said nobody likes a stadium. No community can agree to it. That's bureaucratic, that is abuse of the power and authority. The football team has virtually settled on South Philadelphia, just east of the First Union Center. But John Street come to pitch Chinatown after he met with some strong oppositions in other communities. That's not fair. In the past 30 years, the state and the city have built Vine Expressway, prison, Gallery 139 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Convention Center to surround and block the development of Chinatown. Our Chinese community need space to expand business. Now John Street is a adopting a policy to limit and narrow down the Chinese development space. We are definitely say no. 8 In conclusion, stadium on Vine Street is not viable and also is not feasible. We want Mayor Street consider of our request, and change his mind, and give up the recommendation and find somewhere else. We also sincerely request all City Council Members pay attention to our concerns. Stand up and speak for us. Fight against the Vine Street stadium. Save Chinatown, with 130 years of history. As taxpayers, we don't want to pay extra money to build a stadium in Chinatown area. We need a school, library community health centers, et cetera, but not stadium. No stadium in Chinatown. Thank you for your time. MR. McPHERSON: Rosita Johnson. Robert Meek. 140 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 C'Anne Anderson.
My name is C'Anne Anderson. I live on the 1300 block of Nectarine Street, between Nectarine and Buttonwood.
This city was once called the essence of the new world. And Athens was the Greek civilization's defining peak. This city, Philadelphia, has resources that draw people from all over the world. We have got art and architecture, we have historic neighborhoods, we have got gorgeous parkways, world-class restaurants, a seaport waterfront, and we got four professional sports teams. Yet, people who love this city leave it. They leave it when their kids get to be school age. That should tell us something. (Applause.)
I can imagine the building boom this city would be in if all those people had stayed here. People live their lives spending their energy making products and services that other 141 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 people pay for. They take that money and more energy, and they put it back where they live and where they work. So are grown great neighborhoods and so are grown great cities, truly great cities. City budgets come from taxing all that activity. And great cities prioritize spending in such a way that they get more people to come and want to live there, and there we get a big tax base and an increased budget. I would like to know why we are starving this city by buying baubles for people who don't even live here. (Applause.)
Philadelphia is at a crossroads. We have an awesome choice to make, a choice about real sustainable quality of life growth. Our children need ballfields, but they need them on playgrounds, in safe neighborhoods. (Applause.)
They do not need unaffordable downtown entertainment options. 142 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Our children need housing and they need new school buildings; they need books and they need computers. (Applause.)
We have teachers in the Philadelphia system buying pencils and papers for their students just so they can teach their class. That is not world class; that is embarrassing. (Applause.)
This is a city full of committed and creative people who can do the job, and we have a choice here. Either we will fritter away our resources fighting about whose responsibility it is to fix the schools in the neighborhoods and playing political shell games about separate budgets and untappable revenue streams, or we will simply rise to the occasion and solve the problems. If we can find money for a stadium, we can find money for a school system. (Applause.)
We can't do both. This is about priorities. 143 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Whatever else it is, building a stadium, as you have just heard, is not about economic growth for this city. 30 years of analysis on publicly financed stadiums all over this country have made economic gain a highly discredited rationale for this kind of spending. We do ourselves a disservice to continue the rhetoric, much less spend money on that decision basis. City tax dollars should be spent for city needs. All those people who left Philadelphia, they went to the suburbs, where they spend a higher portion of every single tax dollar on education. They spend almost $2,000 per child more than we do, and their children get an education,. While 58 percent of our school children cannot pass standard proficiency tests. (Applause.)
We have a choice here. And the quality of the life in this city is what will define our status, world class or third class. 144 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: Whittier Dow.
Good afternoon, Councilmen Cohen and other Council Members. My name is Whittier Dow, from the Housing Consortium for Disabled Individuals. I am speaking from two perspectives. I am speaking on behalf of my agency first, and as a citizen of the city. On behalf of my agency, and also on behalf of myself, I am opposed to a new stadium in Chinatown. And I am opposed to a stadium in Chinatown because in my job as a Fair Housing Specialist, to put a stadium in Chinatown would have a disparaging impact on the people in Chinatown. And what that means in fair housing, means that the housing options for their community would be lessened. As we have heard throughout the testimony, for the last 30 years whenever Philly has taken a hit, the Chinatown community has been the main ones to take a hit. And I think it is time that it stops. 145 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 (Applause.)
And as we also heard, that the economic development impact of the stadium would be less. And Philadelphia is a city that should respect our communities more, and just not for a short-term economic boom. And the people in Chinatown, and I am saying this as a private citizen, should not be sacrificed. Because if your community is sacrificed now, there will be other communities in the future that will be sacrificed. (Applause.)
I am a lifetime Philadelphian. Love this city. If you look at my shirt today, I have a picture of Muhammed Ali on my shirt. This is how I feel about Philadelphia. We are the greatest city, but we should not sacrifice one of our communities for a supposed short-time image booster. We should realize that our community in Chinatown, we have one of the greatest Chinese communities in the country. I have traveled throughout the country, and I have seen it. 146 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 And if City Council is concerned about what they do about the stadium, other options might be possible, where there is more space at, where traffic conditions are better. Also, a stadium at 12th and Vine would not benefit a lot of people in the disabled community because of transportation concerns, because of the ability to get in and out of that area. I know no one looks at the disabled communities when they are trying to consider building these stadiums and things like that, but you should. You should. Because we are a factor where you build the stadium. (Applause.)
And I came here today opposed to a stadium at 12th and Vine. I think I may be opposed to a stadium even moreso throughout the whole Philadelphia region, if more is not put in by other resources. That's not my decision. But I am here to say to my City Council and to the City Council IN Chinatown, before you make decisions about where a stadium should be, you should talk to all people in that community, 147 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 take their concerns into being, and let them know that you truly care about them, just not in the short, run when every four years comes, but throughout the time in City Council. And I say to my friends in Chinatown, fight on. If they try to put it there, fight on. And I say to City Council, wherever you decide to put a stadium, put a stadium in that will benefit all Philadelphians, and just not benefit certain interests. Thank you very much. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: The next witness will be Mary Goldman.
And before Whittier Dow leaves, we have to say you are an inspiration to us all, Whittier. We thank you very much. (Applause.)
Good evening, Councilman Cohen and other Councilpeople. I thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of Americans for Democratic Action. 148 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 While Americans for Democratic Action understands the need for improved stadium facilities, we cannot support the commitment of hundreds of millions of Philadelphia tax dollars for this purpose. We oppose any additional local subsidy for stadiums in excess of the 80 million already contracted for repairs and improvements to Veteran's Stadium. We recently held a forum on issues regarding the stadiums, attended by some 80 to 100 people. Almost unanimously they opposed huge outlays of public funding for the stadiums, and the use of Vine Street as a location because of the impact on Chinatown, and the increased cost due to PECO substation. Last week we witnessed the resignation of the Superintendent of Schools over the unwillingness of the state government to adequately help fund our schools, and this at a time when the state has a surplus of close to a billion dollars. Instead, our schools will be forced 149 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 to make cuts in vital educational programs such as summer school, child care, professional development for teachers, and all adult education to the tune of some $30 million. Surely if this Council can even contemplate spending our local taxes on the huge amounts mentioned for stadiums, it could find more than the million, plus the already committed 15 10 million, for the very essence of our future, our 11 children. 12 Huge stadium subsidies only give 13 credence to the accusation by state officials that 14 we do not tax ourselves enough here in Philadelphia 15 for our schools. 16 How skewed could our priorities be, 17 and have become, if we even consider further 18 increasing the corporate welfare for stadiums. 19 We believe that San Francisco's 20 90-percent-team-financed stadium should be the model for Philadelphia, but with our financial obligation limited to the already committed $80 million. We support construction jobs, but do not think the stadiums are the only source of such jobs. How about making our decaying schools safe 150 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 and sound. How do we as a society build sky boxes for the rich, while our kids eat their lunches in decrepid surroundings? (Applause.)
At a time when insufficient resources exist for our school children, it is a perversion of civic priorities to lavish scarce public resources on million dollar enterprises. (Applause).
The most important game in this town is education, not ball games. (Applause.) Thank you very much.
Good evening. My name is Loraline Jones. I am the Athletic Director and the Coach at the University City High School. And I first wanted to say that I am Philadelphia born, I am Philadelphia bred. And when 151 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 I die, I will be Philadelphia dead. I believe in the City of Philadelphia. I believe that we have a ways to go. And I am thankful that we have an opportunity to make a statement. I represent, I feel that I am representing, the school children of Philadelphia. When Mayor Street became the Mayor, the first words that came out of his mouth was that this is the city, this is the year of the child. And I want to go on record to let him know that I am going to hold him to that statement that he made. (Applause.)
I also want to say to District Council 33, as a member of the PFT, I feel you. I am speaking on behalf of the school children of Philadelphia, but I am also speaking in particular for 6,000 kids who attend Overbrook, University City, and William Penn. My question is, why should we pay for stadiums that are only going to be used for six months out of the year, and why are we paying for stadiums for multi-million-dollar athletes, who do 152 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 not live in our community? I also want to read a statement from -- and I had a couple of students with me, but they left to go to Fellowship Farm on a retreat. But the editor of the Black and Gold newspaper wanted to make this statement. And it goes like this, "As I watch television and read newspapers, the issue of building a stadium for the Phillies and Eagles continuously comes up. "When I first heard that the city was going to help with building stadiums, I was outraged because our school system is in desperate need of funding. "Our school system is $300 million in debt, and yet you want to build stadiums costing $700 million. Something isn't right. "How do we have the money for a new stadium and yet we don't have the money for schools?" (Applause.)
"Are the multi-million-dollar professional athletes and the big corporations more important than the children? "These corporations pay these 153 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 professional athletes millions of dollars a year, and now they want to use taxpayers' hard-earned money to build new stadiums. "If they want new stadiums, then they need to build it with their own money." (Applause.)
"It is not a taxpayers' obligation to pay for a new stadium, but it is the team's obligation. "I can see the city building a new state-of-the-art stadium that would benefit the city, but the children must come first. Mayor Street, keep your word. Remember, this is the year of the child, not the year of the stadium." (Applause.)
And this is written by the editor of the Black and Gold newspaper, Melsicurre Griffin Elm. And I would like to continue on with the statement that I wanted to make. That I am aware that City Council has concerns as to how the stadiums would impact the community. 154 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 For the most part, the average Philadelphian would be unable to attend these events because of parking, eating. And if they went to an Eagles game, we are talking about for one day, for one person somewhere in the vicinity of $125. I would like to offer a small solution that may help to make this bill more attractive, because I know the stadiums are going to be built. How they are going to do it, I don't know. In Philadelphia, there are high schools with rich sports traditions that have access to know fields or tracks. These schools are University City, Overbrook, and William Penn. As a stakeholder in Philadelphia, I feel that the athletes of Philadelphia should be able to look forward in playing in these new facilities. I also strongly feel that the professional sports organizations should give back to the community in which they play and earn their big salaries. (Applause.)
I would like to 155 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 propose -- the proposal that I make WOULD be a commitment to the young people of Philadelphia, and it would also level the playing field for all students. Therefore, I would like to make the following proposal: That all high schools in Philadelphia without fields, tracks have a facility provided and funded through this stadium bill; that all existing fields be upgraded and that all tracks become all-weather facilities; that funds be set aside for the maintenance of such fields through the revenue from ticket sales, approximately to 50 14 cents tacked onto each ticket, as they do in the 15 City of San Diego and Sacramento; that all high 16 school championships, football, baseball, be allowed 17 to use these stadiums without costs; and that having 18 special games that the athletes and their families 19 in Philadelphia may attend at half cost or no cost. 20 Because right now most of the 21 students in Philadelphia do not see professional 22 games, indoors or outdoors, because of the cost. 23 I feel that this would be -- there 24 would be opportunities for community involvement and 25 community commitment to the school kids of 156 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Philadelphia from their multi-million-dollar athletes that work in our city. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: Reverend Jones.
And I don't have a speech in front of me. I just want to speak from the heart.
I'm sorry. You have to identify yourself for the record first.
Reverend Kathleen Jones. Our constitution gives us freedom of speech and also the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. And Philadelphia does have Philadelphia pride. We have pride in our Eagles, our Phillies team, Pat's Steakhouse. We have pride in so many things in Philadelphia, even in Chinatown. I've lived here in Philadelphia all 157 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 my life. And I am now 50 years old, maybe a few years over. But as long as I have lived here in Philadelphia, there's been a Chinatown. And, you know, we all have a heritage that we want to preserve, and just like we preserve 4th and Chestnut, where the Betsy Ross House and other things are preserved. And the faces that are here today from Chinatown and the Asian community are real faces, and they have real concerns. They are concerned for their children, they are concerned for their community, concerned for their heritage, concerned for their families. And as a clergy, as a minister of the gospel, you know, just like when David went to slay Goliath, to them their Goliath is the stadium. And, you know, many people are -- I have heard the testimony, and I agree with most of them. And I am really not opposed to a stadium, per se. But those that want a stadium, do you want it in your backyard? Why not take another choice. 158 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 You know, those that want a stadium, why don't they call City Council and say, "Well, build a stadium here in our community." No, they don't want it in their community because they don't want all the things that it may bring. But if that's the solution, why force it on a people and a heritage that don't want it. Like I said, there again, they have faces, just like we have faces, and their concerns and their wants and their desires. And if they don't want a stadium there in Chinatown, then we should consider that concern and say, "Well, we will have to find another site." We have heard about economic development, the things that it will bring, some say the things that it won't bring. But let's consider all these things that have been discussed today. We come before this Council because we believe that you are fair and that you are just. And that's what this judicial system is all about, being fair and just and hearing the concerns of the people. 159 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 And my concern is with the concerns of the Asian community today, and that is not to build a stadium in Chinatown. Let's preserve their heritage. Thank you. (Applause.)
I believe we have the Executive Director of the Asian Americans United. (Applause.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Ellen Somekawa. I am the Executive Director of Asian Americans United. I would like to suggest that before anybody votes to build a stadium in Chinatown, that you first practice explaining it to your constituents. Practice it out loud. See how it feels. (Applause.)
Say, "I took money away from small children. I took money away from 160 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 the public schools, the libraries, the recreation centers, the parks, the playgrounds, and I gave it the hotel owners. I gave it" -- (Applause.)
"I gave it to real estate speculators. I gave it to the parking lot magnets, and I gave it to multi-millionaire team owners." Say it out loud. Say, "I supported the stadium because the sky boxes for the Phillies and Eagles owners are more important to me than paying a decent wage to our city workers." (Applause.)
Say it out loud. See if it sticks in your throat just a little bit when you say, "I stand for subsidizing the construction of more overpriced parking so that big campaign contributors can earn more money and give more money to our campaigns." Does it stick a little bit in your throat? (Applause.)
While the Paul Levy's and Tom Maloon's, the Zeritski's and the Grasso's 161 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 attempt to make us believe that they are interested in the well-being of this city, most Philadelphians know only too well that they are interested in the narrow interests of a very few rich. (Applause.)
After 130 years of neglect, we now hear politicians expressing their concern for the well-being of the Chinatown community. Not one investment of city services in this neighborhood for 130 years. Not a public school, not a public library, not a public recreation center, not a public park, not a public playground, not a swimming pool. And now, all of the sudden, these expressions of concern, "If only the poor people of Chinatown understood what was good for them, then they would see that spending a half a billion dollars on a baseball stadium, while their children are out playing in the streets is good for them." You know, the people of this city are not stupid. They are going to see the stadium deal for what it is. It is the simple transfer of wealth from the hands of the working people of this city 162 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 into the hands of a very few millionaires. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: Reverend Simms. John Chin.
We have two gentlemen on the list for John Chin. One is the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation. Then we have another John Chin, a Duck Chun Association. (Applause.)
Good evening everyone. I am John Chin, Duck Chun Association. My name is John Chin. I represent the Duck Chun Association, nonprofit family corporation. I am President. I live in our community over 40 years. Chinatown was established over 130 years ago. We step by step are living and working to build our community and business and neighborhood. We have dream to expand our community, to help more Asian people to come here to invest, to be developed. Chinatown needs space for additional commercial and housing land for our new 163 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 generation. Our children is our future. Unfortunately, our Mayor Street broke this dream. To close up our one and only remaining area to expansion to the north. I am sure more surrounding community is more business, provide more job. For the past 130 years, population is over 2.2 million population, and now about 1.6, compares to New York City, population is increasing. But Philly is decrease. We want city government to help our community for the public service and public school, park, library, and community activity center, not this stadium. We strong to oppose this to build stadium in Chinatown. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Good afternoon, Madam President, Mr. Chairman, Members of Council. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Chinatown Coalition in 164 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 regard to this serious imposition on Chinatown which we have identified as something that is not something that should happen to Chinatown, as I am sure you have heard already. My purpose in being here today is to provide Council with some of the reasons why a City Council that's concerned about the rights that all people have, and particularly minorities have, that should not be impacted by this particular project because this particular project will be, as you have heard, a serious insult to Chinatown. I have prepared a document in the nature of an opinion letter for the Chinatown Committee. Which, if it hasn't already been given to you, I believe will be. So that my purpose today in speaking to you, rather than to read that document, is to identify some of the highlights. Chinatown is protected, first of all, by the concept of equal protection of the law under the Constitution of the United States. And it so happens that one of the most well-known and outstanding cases of cities impacting on minorities in a way as to deny them 165 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 equal protection under the law is a case involving a Chinese community. It is 120 years since the City of San Francisco attempted to prevent Chinese people from operating businesses, then it was laundries, by the use of a subterfuge. The subterfuge was to prohibit laundries in wooden buildings. It was well known that the purpose of this ordinance was to allow the city to shut down Chinese laundries, which were all wooden. And that's what happened. And the Supreme Court of the United States, that long ago, stated that the equal protection clause protects not only explicit action which denies the rights of a minority based on ethnicity or national origin, but in fact bars the misuse of apparently equal or nonintentional conduct which is used, in effect, to deny that kind of right to all citizens, including Chinese. It is ironic that we are here 120 years later on the same type of issue. Why would Chinatown be selected as the site, when there's open lots at 16th Street, 17th Street, and Vine Street; when there's open 166 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 space at Spring Garden and the Delaware River; when there's open space at Broad and Spring Garden, which was a site that was recommended by the previous Administration? Why would Chinatown be selected as the location of this stadium? The answer is because there is not the type of respect for the ethnic group that the Chinese represent in our society. (Applause.)
And we are perfectly capable and willing of going to the Supreme Court of the United States, if we have to, to have that Court review the facts in the Year 2000 as it reviewed the facts in the 1880s. Turning to other legal protections. The impact on Chinatown will be, if this project occurs, another sad example of the use of public power by the City of Philadelphia to deny the rights of people to enjoy the protection of the rights of property under the Constitution of the United States. There have been too many occasions when the federal courts have had to tell the City of Philadelphia that it cannot simply take away 167 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 people's property rights, which includes the right of reasonable enjoyment of their property, for reasons that are arbitrary or capricious and not supported by reasonable facts. I refer the Council to the cases of Midnight Sessions which established the principle, Parkway Garage where the city had to pay money, and the case that's less well known but involved Penn's Landing, where the same thing occurred. Here we have a situation where the people of a group that are enjoying property rights which they have paid for, purchased, and own, and they're having those rights essentially destroyed -- the rights to make money, the rights to enjoy a quality of life in a residential area -- by virtue of a city action which is arbitrary. To spend $300 million more, or $450 million more, or whatever it might be, to build a stadium in Chinatown is an arbitrary action which denies those rights to the people of Chinatown. When you compound that rule with the doctrine and the concerns over environmental racism which are occurring, and you factor in the impacts that this project would have on the environment of 168 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Chinatown, which is a community which has already suffered repeated demands, insults, and damages from public projects, of which the Convention Center is only the most recent and the Vine Street Expressway is only the most obvious, but these things have occurred over and over again. The federal government has required the environmental racism be identified and eliminated. Is it likely that the state government and state laws enforced by the state courts will be any less clear? And, by the way, is there or is there not federal money involved in this project? We have written to Mayor Street twice now to find out what the plans are for this project. One of the questions that we have been asking is, what is the financing? That's the question before you here today, or one of the questions before you here today. What is the financing? Where is the city going to get $450 million? How much are the teams going to pay? Is the city going to use federal block grant money, 169 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 UDAG repayments, or any of the other federal sources that the Council is familiar with? If so, then the city is not only going to comply with whatever the rules are for environmental compliance under the state law, but also with the federal doctrines involving environmental racism. I can go on to identify the issues involved in eminent domain and the prohibition of the use of eminent domain for private purposes, the doctrines involving the prohibition on the use of the governmental financing authority for the benefit of private individuals. These issues and many more are identified in my letter. But I know you have a lot of speakers to hear, Madam President, and I am not going to impose on you any longer. I am going to thank you for your patience. I am going to say to you that the net consequence of -- the aggregate consequence of all of the issues that I have raised is that this project, in my belief, will not be permitted to go forward by the courts. But it shouldn't be to the courts to enforce the law. 170 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 In the first instance, it is for our elected, legislative officials to enforce the law. It shouldn't be necessary to go to court.
We hope we don't have to go to court. We look to our City Council, our elected officials, to vindicate the law, uphold the law, and ensure that legal doctrines are respected. And if this Council does so, then this Council will not approve this project. And we thank you for considering it. Thank you. )
I didn't mean to be impolite. If there are any questions, Madam President.
I wanted everybody to know that 33 years ago, when Robert Sugarman was a young lawyer and I was running for my first position, not even then a young man, Robert Sugarman took up the cudgels on behalf of groups in Germantown. There was then the Philadelphia Mayor who decided that Germantown should have a major 171 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 highway cut through the heart of it, called the Belfield Bypass. Robert Sugarman, as a young lawyer, took up on behalf of that community, was the attorney on their behalf in the federal courts. The Belfield Bypass was never built. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: Nancy Dunno.
My name is Amy Hooper, and I live in a condominium building located in the southeast corner of 13th and Callowhill. It's known as Bow Arts Lofts, for those of you who are unfamiliar with it. There are 64 units in our condominium building and over 100 residents who are in the exact footprint of the stadium site at 12th and Vine. Our building houses a variety of people. We have professional athletes, members of the media living there, physicians, artists, et cetera. We are a really tightly knit, wonderful, vital community that has been in 172 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 existence for about years now. What I want to say to the Council is, to have you carefully consider the idea of such an expensive proposition in a neighborhood that has been growing and changing. I am a native Philadelphian. This city is very dear to my heart. I know that all of the people that live in the building with me feel very, very concerned about this issue. Not only because we will be displaced. Members of our community are disabled, they won't be able to find new housing, they won't be able to get new mortgages. We have watched our neighborhood change over the past 15 years. We are a neighborhood that's up and coming. We are exactly what Philadelphia is about. We are a community that has dug in, that has gone through a tremendous amount of change. Right next door to us is the Wolf Building that houses several technology companies that are up and coming, other artists. We are right down the street from Diane Berka, who is an artist who did the murals in the Marriott. 173 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 There are -- in the whole area surrounding us, there are artists that live there, vital members of the community that have dug in and tried to rebuild an area that is unique to the city. And we understand the value of our land and we understand why you would want to put a stadium there. But we want you to know that it is not a good idea. And we find that it is the height of hypocrisy that you would build such an expensive stadium and let our public school system be in such a state of shambles. I personally find that absolutely amazing. One of the best things that happened since the Mayor has made the suggestion to put a stadium in our neighborhood is that we have bonded even closer with our neighbors in Spring Garden and our neighbors in Chinatown. And I can tell you firsthand that Chinatown is one of the warmest communities. They have done nothing but welcome us and our support. And if for no other reason to save Chinatown, you absolutely cannot put a stadium at 174 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 12th and Vine. It will absolutely strangle them. And they are a wonderful group of people that do not deserve this lack of consideration and lack of respect that the Mayor has shown them. Thank you. (Applause.)
My name is Sharon Nitage. I also live at Bow Arts Lofts. And I am one of those people that have chosen to come here. I come from the suburbs. I moved to Philadelphia. And as a person who is recently married and about to start a family, I want to stay here. I love Philadelphia. And I want to do everything I can. So I buy this property, and I am making the decision to stay, while my friends and my family are all moving to the suburbs because they want to get away from the percent wage tax and, you know -- anyway, I would need to move for lack of space. And I am trying to, with the schools, I am 175 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 trying to figure out a way to stay. So I buy this place, I figure it out. And here you are pushing people who are trying to stay and trying to build up Philadelphia and trying to make the investments in the areas that need developing, and we are being pushed out. I can understand why my friends and family have left. And I can understand why people are leaving. Because they feel like they are being pushed out, they feel like there is no alternative. And this is another example of not giving an alternative, pushing us out. And I am not feeling a whole lot of brotherly love right now. And that's all I have to say. (Applause.)
Good evening, Mr. Palmer. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good evening, Madam President and Mr. Chairman. Also to my dear friend Jannie Blackwell, and the other Councilpeople who have been here. I am here today to, although I don't attend Phillies games or Eagles games, I am here to 176 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 talk in favor of stadium, but I am also here to advocate against it being in Chinatown. I was talking to a news reporter, a friend of mine, earlier. And he said to me, you don't have the numbers. It can't stop. And what he was talking about was the fact there were not many African-Americans in opposition to a stadium in Chinatown. But I am here to tell you that the African-American community is in opposition to a stadium in Chinatown. And I shared with you a letter that I mailed to the Mayor and also every member of City Council, as well as the Governor and every member of the Philadelphia delegation. And I will summarize it. I won't read it all to you. And what it does, it makes an appeal to people of African-American decent in this city. Why should we support people in Chinatown? As many white people begin to join the Chinatown movement, Japanese, Koreans, Philippines, Southeast Asians, there is a national movement that's taking place here in the City of Philadelphia. It is wonderful. There is a 177 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 multi-cultural group that's coming forward. But African Americans must recognize the fact, notwithstanding the fact that we have an African-American who sits on the second floor, that the actions which are taking place today are as racist and are biased and discriminatory as any I have faced in the last 50 years of my life. (Applause.)
On Sunday morning, George Burrell of this Administration sat on television with Mark Howard -- now, remember, we have activist Mayor who sits in the City of Philadelphia. I am here to tell you that John Street is not an activist, never has been an activist. And if he were an activist, he would be sitting in this room leading the charge. (Applause.)
Councilman Cohen is an activist. Angel Ortiz is an activist. Jannie Blackwell is an activist. Historically people called Americans, indigenous people, Native Americans, Mexicans, Hispanics, Chinese, Asians, et cetera, they have been systematically targeted to a 178 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 privileged class of people and been exploited by them for their human and natural resources. Calling it institutional greed in the name of progress, technology, and common good have marginalized the customs, values, social morays, have disrespected their values, cultures to achieve personal wealth and ambition. Over the last 50 years in Philadelphia alone, a city which is known as the city of neighborhoods and communities, we have experienced a dispossession of people of color in this city. In the 1950s, University of Pennsylvania did that to my neighborhood. You remember when I stood before you, and you in fact recognized my old community, West Philadelphia, I did something I never did publicly, I broke down and cried right here. For 30 years of dispossession in my beloved neighborhood, 36th and Market Street, a community which was created in 1806 and was dispossessed by the University of Pennsylvania, which did not come into the community until 1873. And now they brag about a university 179 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 city, something that was nonexistent before the 1960s. The 1970s, they moved northward and expanded. They went east and west. In the 1960s, Jefferson University expanded into Mantua, all in the name of progress for a few. During that same period, Temple University wanted to take over percent of the 11 land mass. And I said at this meeting when I stood 12 here with you that only Frank Rizzo dared to help 13 champion the cause. 14 Isn't that ironic. Frank Rizzo, who 15 all of us as activists fought against between the 16 '50s and '60s and '70s and '80s, up until his 17 death, was the person who championed for the little 18 guy. Not only in Port Richmond and in Bridesburg, 19 and not only in Kensington, and not only in Whitman, 20 but also in North Philadelphia and other areas 21 because he believed that this was a city of 22 neighborhoods. 23 Before the turn of the century, large 24 population of blacks moved into South Philadelphia. 25 But we will find in the 1960s that the renaissance 180 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 would push them out. Poor white people were being pushed out of Fairmount. Poor white people were being pushed out of Second Street, being pushed out of Queens Village. The population of blacks in the 1930s had gone from very, very large, and by the 1960s they were a dominant population in South Philadelphia. The 1970s, Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, located at 41st Street and Woodland Avenue, pushed black people further west out of Woodland Avenue. In the '70s, Chinatown was targeted by the Vine Street Expressway. Chinese and Asian-Americans were forced to condense and restrict their living, working, housing, schooling, restaurants, culture within several narrow blocks. Chinatown fell victim again. They fell victim again to Gallery I and II, Hahnemann Hospital, Convention Center, and now a baseball stadium? In 1970s, La Salle College started to encroach further into the black community in Olney. 181 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 During the same period, St. Joe's College was moving deeper into the black community of Wynnefield. In the 1970s, Graduate Hospital was forced to build this hospital. It had the $80 million Hilburton grant that it wanted to take into West Philadelphia and into University City. Coming out of law school, my first act was to bring a legal action against Graduate Hospital, make them in fact live up to the commitment of helping that community. But they still encroached and began to buy up all the neighborhoods around the surrounding area. When we talk about mechanic impact and economic development, I think there is also another equation left out. It is the emotional impact.
It is the emotional development and our retarding of that development that takes place when we dispossess people. )
Why should Philadelphia's people of color, and black people in particular, be asked to pay for and investment in expanding the corporate wealth of a privileged few? 182 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 You look at the Philadelphia stadium. And when the Phillies play, you seldom see a black person there; black people still smart from the racist behavior of Philadelphia Phillies going back to Jackie Robinson days in the early years of Philadelphia Phillies. Is that taxation without representation? Which elected official will have the political will to say this is wrong; not just for Chinatown, but for all of Philadelphia? Who within the religious community will have the moral courage to speak up and speak out? Which faith will recognize the contradictions within the scriptures of this political and corporate decision? Will it be the Baptist, the Methodist, the Apostolic, the Episcopalian, the Catholic, the Quaker, the Jew, the Moslem, the Buddhist, the Lutheran? Who dares to challenge the establishment? Which politicians will speak out in the City Council, state legislature, state Senate against this injustice? And, finally, in the absence of failure of those voices to speak up, it is 183 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 imperative that people of color, and black people in particular, unite with those others uniting with Chinatown. Rise up and fight with the Asian community and their broad-based coalitions that are against this morally reprehensible decision to once again marginize those perceived as the least amongst us. I continue to say, we must fight this at all costs. And I suspect that Philadelphia will see a kind of movement that took place in the 1950s when the Civil Rights movement was at its peak. Thank you so much. (Applause.) - - - 184 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
Andy Toy, Shirley Young, Tim Lee, and Eileen Hing. (Witnesses come forward.)
I am Eileen Hing, president of the Hing Wah Yuen Homeowners Association. I am speaking on behalf of 51 new homeowners of the Hing Wah Yuen development who invested in the expansion of Chinatown's boundaries, located in the section classified as Chinatown North. We are a part of the cutting edge in expanding Chinatown's boundaries and endure adverse surroundings in doing so. The development is surrounded by an ugly abandoned smoke stack, a loud nightclub bar, a truck staging area for the Convention Center and the Vine Street Expressway. We do not want a stadium two blocks away to add to our adversity. We would much rather see our public funding, our hard-earned tax dollars, be spent on quality-of-life necessities such as education and housing. It is unbelievable that one has to choose between funding a stadium or funding our schools. This is so because the beast, the one who preys on those who are politically weak or 185 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 politically nonexistent continues to thrive. Here, the beast continues to prey on Chinatown and the children of Philadelphia. Most immigrants and minorities have felt its sting and thought, This is so unfair. As we enter the 21st century, it is time to change its momentum and not allow it to perpetuate itself. Using public funding to finance the stadium does not make economic sense. Our children are our future. When we invest in them, we invest in our future. Using public funding to finance a stadium in Chinatown will kill Philly's only physical portal into Asia. Does this make sound business sense? Not in these times of the Internet and our global emerging economies, especially when China alone has over one billion potential customers. It is time for Philadelphia to remove its myopic lens and have the true leaders lead.
Madam President, Members of Council, my name is Tim Lee, and I am also here on behalf of the Hing Wah Yuen Homeowners 186 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Association. There can be no dispute that the housing stock for Chinese-Americans is sorely lacking, with the current complement. What new housing there has been developed over the past 30 years in Chinatown has been with the kind assistance of local and State agencies, but it has mainly been through the perseverance of Cecilia Moy Yep, who is being awarded tonight and her (unintelligible) PCDC. Don't get me wrong. The units that are being developed are gladly welcomed, but the supply does not even come close to meeting the actual demand. Hing Wah Yuen represents the culmination of years of planning by PCDC and the cooperation of various City and State officials. Fifty-one units of mixed-income housing have opened the gateway to further expansion north of Vine Street, a community occluded from expanding south, east, west has, as a method of last resort, expanded north. We have 51 families with children living there now. If you haven't had an opportunity to look at it yet, I'd be happy to give you a tour. 187 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 I implore you to think about what would happen if a stadium were built at 11th and Vine Streets. Thousands upon thousands of people would traverse the immediate areas surrounding the development and perhaps even inside of the development. Only two blocks away, we have Holy Redeemer grade school. While most game-goers are law-abiding people out to enjoy a game with their family and friends, there are always the hooligans, the drinkers, the troublemakers, who, incidently, will search out watering holes before but mostly after the games. What happens is that the types of businesses that will sprout are bars, nightclubs. You get my point. I remember, as a child attending Holy Redeemer and living in Chinatown, that there were go-go bars and many drinking establishments in the area. I remember one particular place on the northwest corner of Tenth and Race Street. Dancers were on stage when. When we had our annual candy drive, imagine the angst of the bar keeper seeing an 8-year-old walk into the premises. I'm not sure whether he was so much 188 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 concerned that my presence was causing trouble with the cops or that even he understood that that was no place for a child or children in general or for families. I didn't sell any candy there. Most of them are gone now, replaced by flower shops, restaurants, and professional offices. The seedy side of the once red-light district will undoubtedly return. Proponents say that the stadium at any site will necessarily displace or impose upon some segment of the population. If that is the case, why not put it somewhere where it's mostly welcome, serves the public good, and not severely threaten an established and viable neighborhood and community. Hing Wah Yuen is an example of urban renewal at its finest; there can be no question about that. The concept of public good vis-a-vis housing needs and plans to fulfill those needs clearly encompasses more than a scant perusal by the powers that be followed by a conclusion that it makes good business sense to place a stadium downtown. Good business for whom? Think about the idea of people walking 189 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 from their workplace to see a ball game; it's not going to happen. Who dares to traverse the area from 11th and Vine Streets, or any other Center City location, to, let's say, 18th and Market Streets at o'clock night. It would have to be 7 some brave and foolish souls. 8 Sound public policy means utilizing 9 public funds to enumerate and implement a policy 10 plan that enhances and supports the public common wealth.
The concept of placing stadium in a location whose economic feasibility is questionable, which does not have the support of the Phillies, so far as I can tell, and could potentially severely jeopardize the fiscal soundness of City finances makes no sense to me. We have a school system which may not be able to have a sound operating budget in the upcoming year. We have police forces and fire departments that obviously require more manpower to do their jobs effectively. If we all agree that a $680 million price tag is a fair ballpark figure, can we at least agree that if this is an accurate assessment that we can make a rational decision to build it 190 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 elsewhere, at a reduced cost? No one wants a legacy of ballooning public debt, bankrupt schools, and deteriorating neighborhoods -- at least not the majority of citizens of this great city. Thank you for your time.
Good evening, Council President Verna and the other Councilpeople that are still here. My name is Andrew Toy and I'm here to testify in opposition to the proposal to finance and build a new baseball stadium at 11th to 13th and Vine Streets. I'm a board member of Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation. As a former City Commerce Department official and economist by training, I would like to focus on some of the cost-benefit issues that should be important in your decision-making. Ultimately, even if we can raise all of the millions needed to pay for 191 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 stadium at this site, does our investment here make sense? What kind of return on investment are we expecting if the stadium costs 650 million, 700 million or even $800 million? And what are the opportunity costs of investing our funds here rather than on other critical needs such as schools, economic development, tax reform, housing, or neighborhoods? These are the questions the Administration needs to answer before spending such large sums on this vision. To begin to answer these questions, I would like to focus on important opportunity costs, which have been overlooked in choosing the Vine Street site over other alternatives. The supposed benefits of a downtown stadium on Vine Street must be weighed against what is lost by the City by demolishing four blocks of a developing areas. First, the benefits. The Central Philadelphia Development Corporation commissioned report by Arthur Andersen in 1997 concludes that the City might gain up to $3 million a year -- as we've heard, there are some real questions about that -- in additional taxes at a downtown stadium 192 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 versus South Philadelphia. Many assumptions go into that number. 14. H. 76, which was criticized as too high. But just this percent difference in assumptions knocks the 10 yearly tax revenue amount down by half a million 11 dollars. If the City puts an extra $300 million 12 into 12th and Vine, it would take well over a 13 hundred years or more to recoup the investment, 14 assuming the stadium lasts that long and that 15 there is no time value to money. 16 Even assuming that the study used to 17 support the stadium in Center City is accurate, 18 there are other costs that should be weighed in a good public-policy decision. Beyond the crucial quality of life in the Chinatown community and business impacts are some quantifiable costs regarding the site itself. Our independent analysis totals the lost real estate tax revenues from the stadium footprint to be almost $300,000 today, at today's 193 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 taxes and assessments. If we add in the wage, business, use and occupancy taxes, and water billings, that number could easily double. If we also use a multiplier of economic activity, as the Andersen report does, we quickly reach well over $1 million per year of direct and indirect tax revenues attributable to this site today. But this number is actually an understatement of opportunities lost because this area is on the rise. In the western area of the site, others will relate to you that buildings like the Edwards Shoe building and the Laramie building are in process of being filled with e-commerce and artists' loft space, adding to the already-vibrant Beaux Arts condominium. On the east and north, the Asian residences and businesses are taking hold, as the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation has recently completed its first housing project and office north of Vine and plans another development to break ground this fall. So even the total assessed market value of properties within the site is currently -- so even though the total assessed market value of the 194 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 properties within the site is currently a little over $11 million, this number will be rising significantly with these new developments.
One example is a property with a Board of Revision tax value of just over half a million dollars, whose value today by many is believed to be seven times that number. Given the development pressures already evident, the taxes generated just from within the site could easily double or triple in the next ten years. The irony is that after investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a stadium in the name of economic development, the net increase in revenues to the City per year could end up being nothing, or even a net loss if this area continues growing the way Old City did, as an example, 15 years ago. I know because I lived there then. Obviously, Old City didn't need a stadium to succeed. A look at the time it has taken to develop and is still taking to develop Penn's Landing tells us that 15 years is not a long time. A stadium at 12th and Vine will not only have direct tax consequences to the City; the other costs will be the loss of e-commerce jobs to 195 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 the suburbs and the continued stunting of Chinatown, one of the City's few growing neighborhoods. If it hadn't been for the Vine Street Expressway and other government projects, Chinatown could easily be double in size today. A look at New York's Chinatown shows how growth can happen. In fact, New York City would have lost population in the last decade if not for strong immigrant patterns. By Chinatown finally developing across Vine Street, there is great potential for City population and tax growth in the next decade. On the other hand, if a stadium is built there, there will be a gaping hole 280-plus days a year and a sea of parking lots surrounding the site instead of 365 days of economic and community development moving forward today. One other development opportunity which may be negatively impacted by the rush to put the stadium at this terrible site is the ability the ability of the City to obtain the Reading viaduct under the best of possible terms from the Reading Company. Obviously, it is more difficult to negotiate under time constraints. This decision 196 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 could cost the City millions here as well. The removal of this eyesore will open up the redevelopment of this whole sector of the City, just as the removal of the old viaduct did along West Market Street. Has Mayor and his team investigated or revealed these and other opportunity costs to the public? Or is a stadium at 12th and Vine to be built at any cost, no matter how high? Or worse, will this become another hole in the ground, a moment to a monumental mistake? Finally, if the opportunity costs are so high at this site, is the same true at other Center City sites or other sites in general? No. 16 The City currently receives no tax revenues from either Spring Garden and Delaware or Amtrak's 30th Street Yard. Both also have the advantage of already having many visitors accustomed to traveling by and through them. While I'm not advocating any other site specifically, this analysis shows that it makes poor economic and community development sense for the City to put the stadium at 12th and Vine Streets. As acquisition and construction costs 197 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 and time estimates continue to rise, the picture becomes even clearer. Even setting aside many legitimate community issues, the 12th and Vine Street site is a terrible investment choice for the City's new stadium. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Toy. (Applause.) (Witness comes forward.)
Good evening. My name is Lou Incognito, and I'm a second vice president of the East Mt. Airy Neighbors. I was born in Philadelphia, raised and lived all my entire life in Philadelphia. And I love Philadelphia. My testimony is as follows: While building new sports facilities would provide trade union jobs for construction workers, objections are not raised to begrudge a single worker of the right to a decent livelihood, nor are there protests of cultural and sports activities. 198 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 The two major points of contention are funding and location. Public funds are proposed under the specious argument that the City will eventually gain, and the construction sites are selected without regard to the affected communities. The tens of millions of dollars of proposed stadium subsidies should be spent for housing, for public transit, for health care, and for our severely underfunded public school system. Many, many more trade union jobs would be created in building schools and repairing roads than in stadium construction. Public works will help rebuild our city. Boondoggles will not. Democratic-minded folks will not allow public funds to be spent at the expense of teachers and City workers' contracts. Not only funding, but also choice of site is at issue. Neighbors in other proposed locations have successfully fought off the designs of profiteers. Now our Chinatown friends have become unwilling targets. We stand with the shop keepers and residents who demand to be consulted before construction is attempted. When another 199 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 site is chosen, let us make sure that no part of the City is insulted. As has been repeated many times -- (Applause.)
As has been repeated many times throughout the City, the current funding and site proposals are against our best interests. An East Mt. Airy Neighbors petition demands that no public funds be used until class size in every Philadelphia public school is reduced to 15. (Applause.)
Chinatown pleads that no stadium be built in its community. If the sports teams' owners need new stadiums, let them build the facilities themselves. (Applause.)
Mayor Street should take time to recall those who worked tirelessly to ensure that Philadelphia would not fall into Republican hands. Thank you. (Applause.) 200 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
I understand there are some high school students here and we're trying to get them out of here so they can go study. I hope I can say the names right. Phally Chroy, Fung Wa Chung, Anh Ha, Wilfred Yip, Huot He, and Tan Nguyen. (Applause.) (Witnesses come forward.)
Good evening. My name is Phally Chroy. I live in South Philadelphia. I'm a resident of Philadelphia. I pay taxes, a lot of taxes. (Laughter.)
I'm a student in the School District of Philadelphia -- well, I graduated this year. And what kind of struck me funny about financing the stadium is that the City had the ambition to raise $650 million but they don't have the ambition to raise $650 million for the schools. (Applause.)
One thing that also struck me kind of funny was that I work in Chinatown, and the streets of Arch, they ain't getting any 201 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 wider. I mean, if you're out there at p.m. on the weekdays, the cars don't even move. See, I walk faster than some of the cars that go through traffic. Building a new stadium, you can see what's going to happen. Cars are either going to be stacked on top of each other just to move across these streets, or they're going to have to widen up the streets. And I don't think the City, now knowing that it's going to cost over $650 million is going to invest in, you know, changing the streets of Chinatown. Chinatown itself is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking every time because the area of Chinatown is prime development. And, I mean, you think about, like, prime development, there's other parts of the City who need improvement -- there should be prime improvement in Kensington and Northeast and South Philly, where I live in. You know, there's so much, like, focus in this, you know, stadium, everything else is forgotten. Like -- like -- stadiums bring money; education doesn't, I think, the way it's going. I 202 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 spent four years in high school. Seeing that I've been reading the same books for four years -- it's kind of funny, you know, how many times are you going to read Inherit the Wind and stuff, you know? (Laughter.)
Also, it's like -- hearing the other people speak for so long and being so patient, it made me kind of realize that speaking here today that I can change, like, the minds of City Council. It's kind of like an empowerment towards me. So I'm -- it's like, um -- if I could change, like, you know, like, the minds of, you know, City Council, it would be a great thing. So we don't have much time, so I'm going to pass it over.
My name is Anh Ha. I'm 17 years old and a resident in Northeast Philadelphia. I am here today to express my strong opposition of the stadium being built in Chinatown. Chinatown has been in existence for the 203 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 past 130 years, and now they say that they want to place a stadium in Chinatown. How big do you really think Chinatown is? People oppose the stadium because this is going to mean the end for Chinatown. Chinatown is not a big place. It's where children live, people build their lives, people open their stores there. Talking about an economic boost, for the past 130 years, people have established their lives there and opened their stores. Why shouldn't they have a say in where a stadium should be built. Taking taxpayers money out of their paycheck to build a stadium when our school system, the largest in the State of Pennsylvania, is $300 million in debt. Many, many times, I have been told we are the leaders of tomorrow. Well, the leaders of tomorrow don't even have books to bring home. (Applause.)
I don't just speak because I oppose the stadium, because I'm of Chinese descent and don't want this community destroyed. I speak on behalf of the hundreds and thousands of people who send their children to Philadelphia public 204 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 schools rather than leave Philadelphia and commuters that have to travel through the crowded streets of Center City. I really don't think it's right for their tax dollars to be spent. And for those who don't know, the $650 million project is going to destroy an establishment that has been here for the past 130 years, bringing culture and substance to this city and deprive the children money needed to recover from the large debt in the School District. And I don't think it's right for the money to be spent this way. For you, the elected officials of Philadelphia, your job is to hear the voice of the people. And we say no stadium in Chinatown -- money for education. (Applause.)
Hello. My name is Will Yip, and I oppose the stadium being built in Chinatown. I attend Central High School. I live in the Northeast, and yet, Chinatown has always been like my second home. I can see with my own eyes the ever-growing population of Chinatown. 205 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 And now for sports to park itself into an area only so large. Our voices have not been heard in prior development, such as the establishment of the Convention Center. And there are far too many other developments that are irrelevant to Chinatown. Chinatown serves as a tourist attraction for people to learn about Chinese culture, and it also serves the purpose of uniting people of the Chinese culture together. As you understand, many people from Chinatown came to the United States from their native land. When they arrived to the U.S., they were at a disadvantage of not understanding or speaking the English language. So Chinatown was a place for these people to access their needs conveniently. The induction of the stadium would definitely hurt the capacity of Chinatown. Despite the overcrowded conditions in Chinatown, the Chinese continue to be deprived and discriminated against. We're not going to stand for that. For years, the government has never given Chinatown a sufficient amount of money 206 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 needed to construct housing and various public facilities. Now that Chinatown is beginning to expand, the government wants to plot a stadium on it. The Phillies don't want it in Chinatown, the community doesn't want it in Chinatown, so why does the stubborn mayor refuse to consider different locations for a stadium. (Applause.)
The schools are in debt and the Mayor seems to be showing more concern for a stadium than school funding. There are still numerous financial issues that the public schools are still challenged with, not to mention the safety of our children. A school known as Holy Redeemer will reside less than 500 feet from the stadium. I mean, during the course of the ball games in session, children will be in a corrupted atmosphere of constant disturbance and danger. When traffic builds up, it is hard to preserve any precautions. When heaps of traffic develops, we cannot risk the safety of our children as they walk home from school. Instead of building a stadium in 207 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Chinatown, I say -- no, we say, have Mayor John Street ensure the City of Philadelphia unconditional assurance of public safety and education by establishing the stadium somewhere else and save the money to compensate and resolve all of our staggering problems. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you for that. I think maybe we heard not from the leaders of tomorrow, but from the leaders of today. (Applause.)
That is absolutely an impossible presentation to follow as eloquently. I applaud you. (Applause.)
First identify yourself for the record and proceed. 208 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
I will be very brief. I know it's been a long day for City Council. I am Rita Addessa. I am the Executive Director of Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force. I am a parent -- (Applause.)
Thank you. I'm a parent, I'm a grandparent, I'm a Philadelphia native, and I am here to testify on behalf of myself and the community against this new stadium. (Applause.)
The essence of my commentary is very simple. From our view, the Administration's proposal represents nothing more than another tax giveaway to the corporate elite. (Applause.)
And it's a giveaway that will further impoverish our city. I encourage each member of City Council -- and I notice that most members are not here at this moment, but I do encourage them and have provided copies of an excellent article on how this form of corporate welfare works from a magazine called Dollars and Cents, and the name of 209 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 that article, for the record, is "Public Teams and Private Profits," the March and April 2000 issue. The Administration is engaged in a reverse Robin Hood paradigm. It is particularly unconscionable when one considers the desperate plight of our children and of the public education system in Philadelphia. It is particularly unconscionable when one considers the myriad unmet needs of our community related to long-term employment at living wages, to quality and affordable child, elder, and health care, as well as decent housing and transportation. I strongly encourage the City Council to take a strong stand against the new proposed stadium, and in contrast, argue for the reallocation, as everyone before me has probably spoken, of this billion dollars so readily available to corporate profiteers to be applied to the long-term needs of our communities and, most particularly, for a superior, as we need it, public education system. I ask you, in closing, to consider a few central questions. These are apriori questions that this administration and mainstream 210 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 media, who, I think, have largely left, have failed to address. And the apriori questions are: why a new stadium at all? who benefits? who decides? If private corporations and players want a new stadium, why should limited public tax dollars be used to subsidize private profit for a handful of elites off the backs of our children? The invasion of Chinatown is -- though, at a different level, not particularly different -- from white Western Europeans invasion of this country. That within the concept is absolutely, absolutely unconscionable. (Applause.)
Thank you, thank you. And please note that the we oppose the invasion of any indigenous community, and we certainly, as well, oppose the use of public dollars for private profit and gain. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. My name is Hal Sawyer. I'm here representing several community groups in Germantown: The Concerned Neighbors of Greater Germantown, the West Side 211 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Neighborhood Council, and several other concerned neighbors in Germantown. We're here to show solidarity with the people of Chinatown who are being subjected to an exploitive -- (Applause.)
-- and abusive commercial development. Germantown has suffered similar exploitive and abusive developments in its past, and they are very damaging to both the commercial and the residential fabric of the neighborhood. It is anti-residential development that's going on here. In years from now down the road, one thing will count in Philadelphia's economic wholeness and development, and that is how it retains its residents, how it retains its population. If you look at cities around the United States, they fall into two categories: ones which have retained their population and their residential base since 1950 -- they are viable economic cities; and ones that have allowed their economic base to deteriorate, which follows when their residential base drops -- cities like 212 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Philadelphia, cities like Baltimore that built their famous downtown stadiums have lost population faster even than Philadelphia. This is anti-residential development. It impinges on one of the healthiest, most viable communities in the City, which is Chinatown. Business is booming there. It does not need any help from stadiums, even if you believe that stadiums generate spin-off business, which they do not. (Applause.)
Look at the at Veterans Stadium, which will still not be paid off for years. They're going to tear it down and the City will still be paying off its investment, it's not paid off. It is a capital investment of City funds that has failed to realize its potential. It's not paid off yet, and they're scrapping it. Look around Veterans Stadium. It's been there for 30 years. If there is spin-off business from a stadium for restaurants, for nightclubs, for bars, where are they down there? They've had 30 years to build them. (Applause.) 213 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
Because the business does not exist -- that is why it's not there. (Applause.)
The only business that can succeed around a major sports facility is parking -- the one thing that we don't have, okay? So, it's very simple. If you want to promote economic development in Center City, north of Vine Street, the City can acquire the properties and turn them over to the Chinatown Development Corporation. They will do a better job, okay? (Applause.)
They'll make money, and money will be realized in taxes and benefits to the City, okay? At the same time, I don't think I even have to address the issue of taxpayer money being spent on these stadiums, okay? I think that we have heard that eloquently spoken over and over again, and I think that it's obvious to everyone in this room that when rain is coming in through the roofs of recreation centers, if you care about sports, if you care about baseball, football, why 214 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 don't we have leagues for those things in this city for our kids to enjoy it? (Applause.)
If they're so important -- if these activities are such important cultural components of our civic life, why are we not providing them to our children, let alone basic education? And that's essentially all I have to say. If you want to make sure that this city remains viable, do things for the residents, keep the residential base up, okay? (Applause.)
Do not displace them by hemming them in, do not continue a policy that the City has had for a decade now, that they will not spend a dime anywhere except for Center City. The outlying neighborhoods, where people actually live, do not get any kind of scale development that they can use. Everything is a big deal, a big photo opportunity, and it's downtown. And I'm sure that a lot of people in the Administration would be glad if everything south of South Street and north of Market -- or Fairmount, north of 215 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Fairmount would go away so that they could just keep spending money in the Center City area. But it's not going to work in this case because this is one case where if it works, don't fix it. Chinatown works, okay? It doesn't need any help. (Applause.)
It's an obnoxious piggybacking of a failed economic concept onto a viable neighborhood. The stadium will not make money for anyone except its owners and the concessionaires in it. You know, when people come to a baseball from, let's say, South Jersey, do they go out for dinner? They're not going out to dinner in South Philadelphia now. What makes you think they're going to like Chinese food better than Italian food. (Laughter.) (Applause.)
What they want is -- they want a hot dog and a beer for $4 each in the stadium, and then they go home. Because after a three-and-a-half-hour baseball game, you don't want to do anything else but go home, okay? So 216 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 that's what you do. So the purpose of concessions in the stadium is directly opposed to the idea of spin-off business in the neighborhood, business that the neighborhood doesn't need. I come to eat in Chinatown once a week and I can't find a parking spot. Do you think I'm going to come down here for a Chinese dinner while there's a baseball game going on? Not a chance, sorry. Lee How Fook, you are the best Chinese restaurant, but I'm just going to have to go out to the suburbs and eat second-rate Chinese food from now on. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much.
Grant Gulibon and Beth McConnell? 217 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 (Witnesses come forward.)
State your name for the record so that you will be recorded.
My name is Frances Gabo (ph.). I'm a member of the communist party and represent their position, and I've turned in a statement here. I do want to deal with a number of questions off the cuff in addition to that statement. I'm not going to read the whole statement.
Thank you. (Copy of Ms. Gabo's statement not submitted to stenographer for attachment hereto.)
First, I want to greet all of the Councilpeople here who have taken the time and the effort to hear from the people of this city. It is shameful that more have not been here. (Applause.)
Let me say in defense of the other Councilmembers, when the 218 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 session started earlier this afternoon, most of them were here, but schedules are very heavy, particularly at this time of the year when we're in our last week before the summer recess. Some of them are in their offices listening when they're not here, others are at other meetings, but they will get full copies of all of the testimony.
He has stated that he has to have respect from the people of this city as the mayor of this city, and we certainly owe him that respect. However he has to learn that respect is earned, and it is earned by virtue of the fact that he respects the people as well and hears what we have to say. (Applause.)
And that has not always been 219 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 true. I feel very strongly that a city government owes its people, first and foremost, the service -- their services for being elected means that we have confidence that they will serve us well, and when they don't serve us well, we should really stand up and respond, and that is beyond respect. This city has suffered terrible losses. I was born and raised here. It has suffered terrible losses -- losses in housing, losses in people, losses in health and security, losses in jobs. We were a major industrial city, and that is gone; and with it, the people have gone. In order to just survive, the City -- yes, it needs its culture, it needs its sports fields, but it needs, more than all else, the care for its constituents, the care for the neighborhoods, the care and the concern for the neighborhoods. When we will have enough to be able to take care of the health needs of our cities, imagine we have all of these health centers 220 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 without a single mammogram machine sitting in any one of them. That is an outrage in this day and age when we talk about health care for the whole population, when our children, as has been stated here so well by so many people, do not have the school books, when I know that nurses have to go out and by Band-Aids when a child gets hurt in school because there are no Band-Aids there. (Applause.)
When teachers -- and I would love to ask, I really feel very badly about building trades workers because I come from a building trades family. My husband was a building trades worker, my father-in-law was a building trades worker, and I know the pain of seasonal jobs when we are unemployed. But I would like to ask every one of them, how many apprentices could they teach at one time -- 30 or more? -- under the jurisdiction of one carpenter? They couldn't do it. Why should we expect a school teacher to teach 30 or more children in a classroom when they are unable to do so? And then we will blame those teachers. (Applause.) 221 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
I'm telling you, until we fund the neighborhoods with enough services and facilities, we cannot throw boondoggles into the profit-making people. Thank you. I'm through. (Applause.)
Sure. My name is Grant Gulibon, I'm a senior policy analyst with the Commonwealth Foundation, which is a statewide public-policy research organization based in Harrisburg. Over the past several years, we've written and commented extensively on the subject of taxpayer financing sports stadiums within Pennsylvania. The push for putting taxpayer dollars on the table to finance stadiums is a gamble, with those in power using other people's money to bet that new sports facilities will spark substantial economic development in Philadelphia and in other cities. And they say that the payoff will be shown in growth in population and jobs. 222 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 The problem is that this never pays out. And, as with most gamblers, the people in power are looking for quick fix for the problems facing our cities. It's far easier to throw cash at high-profile sports teams than it is to create quality public schools, safe streets, low taxes, and efficient public services. Yet till these problems are addressed, Philadelphia's economic challenges will continue, with or without new stadiums. That is the evidence that we at the Commonwealth Foundation have found in examining the examples of other cities that have subsidized stadiums with tax dollars. Our conclusions mirror those of other scholars across the United States, such as Dr. Zimbalist and Dr. Rosentraub, who have found that publicly financed stadiums have little, if any, economic impact on the communities that build them. Cities such as Baltimore, where two new publicly financed stadiums have opened in the past decade, continue to struggle economically. Baltimore has lost 250,000 residents since 1960, 223 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 putting its population at its lowest level since 1915, and it continues to lose about 1,000 residents per month. And, also, in an April 1998 report by Greater Philadelphia First and the Pennsylvania Economy League, it was found that Baltimore ranked 44th among the nation's top 50 metro areas in employment growth, one spot below Philadelphia. The evidence also demonstrates that the real winners in the taxpayer-subsidies-for- stadiums game are team owners who, through sweetheart lease deals, are guaranteed to receive almost all of the income the new stadium generates, while making little investment of their own funds. Demands for such deals are leveraged against the threat of moving the team, and policy-makers face the prospect of caving in or being tagged as the ones who lost the team for a city. We do believe that professional sports teams, as private businesses, may still decide that it's in their best interest to build new facilities in order to compete more robustly with other teams. But if that is the case, we believe 224 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 that they should pay the cost of financing their own stadiums, not hard-working taxpayers. (Applause.)
Several major-league baseball and football teams have privately financed stadiums in recent years, including the San Francisco Giants, who, this spring, moved into the new $262 million Pacific Bell Park after San Francisco areas voters repeatedly rejected the Giants' demands for a new taxpayer-funded stadium. The Giants not only listened to those voters but went out and found innovative ways to raise enough private money to build the first privately-funded major league baseball-only stadium in more than three decades. However, Pennsylvania voters have not been, to date, fortune enough to have their elected officials heed their wishes regarding taxpayer-funding of stadiums. Taxpayers have not been bullied by the threats of local teams pulling up stakes and moving out of town. Poll after poll shows that Pennsylvanians oppose taxpayer funding of stadiums. And when given the chance to vote, an overwhelming number of southwestern 225 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Pennsylvanians rejected an initiative to fund stadiums and other projects with tax dollars in the fall of 1997. The rejection of this initiative was loud and decisive, with citizens in counties 7 voting the initiative down by a margin of 2 to 1. 8 And even in Allegheny County, where the new 9 stadiums would have been constructed, the 10 referendum failed by a margin of 58 to 42 11 percent. Citizens are smart. They know that the private sector can build successful stadiums without relying on public dollars, but the voters' verdict in southwestern Pennsylvania was not honored. Local politicians responded by developing an alternative, "The Plan B," that relies heavily on local and State tax dollars. And early last year, despite statewide opinion polls again showing heavy opposition to State tax dollars for stadiums, Pennsylvania legislators approved funding for two stadiums in Pittsburgh in and two in Philadelphia, as well as an expansion of Pittsburgh's convention center. Since that time, problems have 226 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 developed with the Pittsburgh stadium projects. The most serious of those is the federal investigation into alleged improprieties in the awarding of stadium construction contracts; namely, the alleged existence of pass-through schemes under which minority and women-owned businesses would be paid not to work on a project but would be listed as contractors or subcontractors in order to meet Affirmative Action requirements. In addition, the two stadiums and expanded convention center are expected to eventually cost more than one billion dollars, about $350 million more than projected during the regional renaissance initiative campaign of 1997. The Pirates' new stadium, in particular, will stand where, just two years ago, there stood homes and businesses, a residential neighborhood. Some of these homes, which dated back to the early 19th century, were pushed aside in the name of so-called progress. Building new stadiums will not solve Philadelphia's most pressing social and economic problems. Census Bureau figures show that 227 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Philadelphia lost percent of its population during the 1990s; other data show that the majority of those leaving are between the ages of and 39, the prime demographic group that plans 6 to start families, create business, and are most 7 attractive to potential employers. And when those 8 who have left were asked why they did, the answers 9 were: poor public schools, a fear of crime, high 10 taxes, and a lack of quality public services -- 11 not because the Phillies and the Eagles don't have new stadiums. If the teams and the community ultimately decide that new stadiums are in their best interests, then all parties should work together to find innovative ways to raise private funds for construction. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
My name is Beth McConnell, and I'm an advocate with PennPIRG, the Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group. 228 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 PennPIRG is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-interest advocacy organization representing close to 12,000 citizen members across the State. PIRG, as part of a national organization, has become well known for our efforts to cut wasteful and destructive government spending from the federal budget, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about this issue here in Philadelphia. It's been called "A Field of Schemes" and "A Major League Steal." Opposition to it has caused conservative think tanks and progressive advocacy organizations to join together, and the subject has inspired vigorous debate in cities from Boston and Nashville, Seattle to Tampa, Baltimore to San Francisco. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence against the economic benefits of public financing for sports stadiums, as well as overwhelming public opinion against public financing, decision- makers in our city are having a tough time saying no to wealthy special interests. It is time for our city officials to listen to the facts and the will of Philadelphians and stop corporate welfare 229 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 for sports teams in our city. Recent estimates put the cost of a new baseball stadium in excess of $627 million. Public financing of this enormously expensive venture is corporate welfare at its worst. Wealthy team owners will reap the benefits while the public will be left holding the bag. At a time when our city is struggling to provide basic critical services to its citizens, this corporate welfare is unacceptable and must be stopped. (Applause.)
Claims made by proponents for public financing that the public will reap economic benefits as a result of increased revenue brought by a new stadium are tenuous at best. Numerous independent economic studies demonstrate that sports stadiums almost universally fail to generate statistically significant economic benefits or increased employment for the metropolitan areas they are located in. One study done by Robert Bade (ph.) of Lake Forrest College studied 30 cities over 30 years and found that 27 experienced no significant 230 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 economic impact from new stadiums, while cities 3 actually experienced a negative economic impact. Oriole Park in Maryland is a prime example. A recent study shows that the net game to Baltimore's economy in terms of new jobs and incremental tax revenue from the new stadium is only $3 million per year. A measly return on a $200 million investment, this can hardly be considered a gain. PennPIRG believes that public dollars should not be used to finance private gain. Due to the fact that these numerous studies have shown the public financing awards no benefits to the public, we urge City Council and other decision- makers on this issue to oppose public financing of any sports stadiums in Pennsylvania. (Applause.)
Robert Sklaroff, Robert Sklaroff? (No response.) 231 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
Irene Wright? John Struble? (Witness comes forward.) (Applause.)
Thank you. My name is John Struble. I own property at 1215 Wood Street. I think the Mayor has his priorities backwards. If a new stadium is built, it should be built at the proper cost, at a proper location, and to the benefit of the taxpayers and the fans -- not the Center City interests or the team owners. People leave this city because of the poor quality of our schools, not because of the age of our stadiums. Extra police and better high school graduates would contribute more to the economic development than stadiums would. The Mayor says the area where the stadium is going to go is blighted. This is not true. I work there every day. Let me tell you about this area. At the corner of 13th and Wood is the Hyde Building, 8 stories, 80,000 square foot, almost fully occupied; the Edwards Shoe 232 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 building, stories, 80,000 square feet, being converted into residential lofts; the arts space, 10 stories, 130,000 square foot, textile manufacturers, wood workers, and artists; the Wolf Building, right behind the corner, right behind me, 7 stories, 120,000 square foot -- in three years, this has been developed into a 90 percent occupied building. So when the Mayor says this area is blighted, he is wrong. But why does he say it's blighted? He says it's blighted because that's the first step in condemnation under eminent domain. This is going to become a job for lawyers. I want the City Council -- I ask the City Council to vote this down right away. This is not a job for lawyers; it is a job for you to do. And thank you very much. (Applause.)
Oh boy, you guys got stamina, man. (Witness speaks in foreign tongue.) 233 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
My statement says "good afternoon," but I think I have to change it to "good evening." My name is Debbie Way. I am with Asian-Americans United and the Philadelphia Chinatown Coalition to oppose the stadium. I would like to speak to you today about the cost of this project, but I don't mean the economic cost, I mean the social cost; and I don't just mean the social cost to Chinatown as a community, but to the City, as it makes critical choices on how to rebuild and revitalize Philadelphia, and in those choices, creates a blueprint for the future and an example for our children. The social costs of these stadium projects cannot be measured in dollars and cents. They are measured in spirit and hope and a vision for sustainable cities well into the 21st century. And what does this mean for Philadelphia? As Jimmy Boggs said nearly 15 years ago 234 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 as he reflected on the same question for the City of Detroit, to begin, we have to stop seeing the city as just a place to which you come to get a job or to make a living and start seeing it as the place where the humanity of people enriched because they have the opportunity to live with people of many different ethnic and social backgrounds. (Applause.)
The foundation of our city has to be the people living in communities. We have to see ourselves as responsible for our city and for each other, and especially for making sure that our children are raised to place more value on social ties than on material wealth, on the development of our neighborhoods and not on the lining of pockets of the rich. (Applause.)
We have to get rid of the myth that there is something sacred about developing industries based on visitors and transients who have no commitment to our city or our neighborhoods or our children. (Applause.) 235 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
Such development renders our neighborhoods invisible. Our communities only become valuable as commodities, interesting stops along a tourist's way to entertain and amuse them. City administrations across the United States support and are supported by outside developers who promise that luxurious sports complexes will replace the jobs once provided by industry. But for each so-called success story touted in the press, grassroots citizens have struggled because their major concerns -- living and raising their children in healthy, environmentally just, and sustainable communities -- are ignored. Ask the neighborhood people of Baltimore or Cleveland if life has improved. Are the schools better? is housing better? are streets cleaner? are jobs more plentiful? are communities safer? are neighborhoods flourishing because of baseball stadiums? (Applause.)
Neil DuMause, in his book, Field of Schemes, said: "Unrestrained 236 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." If we continue on this track, we will find that Philadelphia will come to resemble Atlantic City, a city whose fancy facades mask decaying neighborhoods, a city which teaches its children that the fast and easy is more important than the deep and meaningful. This is a cultural and spiritual struggle as much as it is an economic and political one. Grace Lee Boggs asks, do we want our children to grow up to be passive consumers and spectators living only for their own pleasure and self gratification, only for the excitement of the moment, or do we want them to become productive, self-reliant, and self-determining citizens? These profoundly moral and spiritual questions are at the heart of this struggle. In the wake of real and lingering concerns with Philadelphia's economic future, development continues to be defined by the needs of business and industry, and not by the socio-cultural needs of the communities who live here and have put roots here. Development has boiled down to a big publicly funded project of 237 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 hundreds of millions of dollars to benefit tourists and commuters. This is like keeping count of the bodies which enter and leave the City, without caring about whether or not there is cultural and social breadth in the bodies which make up the city itself. True development in this city must not only look at the body of the city, the shiny new glass and the glitz of Center City's downtown corridor, of which Chinatown is the last standing, attached neighborhood of color. True development must attend to the breadth of our city, to the life of our many neighborhoods and communities, lest the collective breadth of this city be irretrievably lost. And what does breadth look like? I saw community breadth here tonight, breadth for us, for Asian-Americans who have stood here in a place that is very hostile to us. It was evident today in our children and our youth who came out here since 9 o'clock this morning, petitioning, begging, pleading, hoping that they will be heard, who stayed until they had a chance to have their voices heard. Breadth to us is in our businesses 238 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 and in particular the Ocean Harbor and Hong Kong Golden Phoenix restaurants who donated over 200 dinners tonight because the people here are defending our community. (Applause.)
The spirit in this room 8 cannot be measured in dollars and cents. This is way beyond economic development. I realize now that when speaking of the choices behind this issue of stadium financing, I'm directly addressing three levels of marginalization: First and most obvious is the question of class, where power and privilege assumes precedence over the lives of working and poor people, the common people, the little man, the people that the government is charged to protect and serve. The second is race, where development consistently means a form of cultural and ethnic cleansing from the downtown core. And, thirdly, there is the marginalization of gender, where there exists an unquestioned assumption that men's gains take precedence over women's, children's, and families' 239 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 lives. (Applause.)
I raise the question of gender equity involved in the jobs being created by these proposals and the prime beneficiaries of such proposals. This question must be put on the table when considering such public expenditure of dollars. I wasn't going to say this -- I took it out and everybody said that I should probably say it anyway. But I realize that it takes balls to play these games. (Laughter.)
In closing, though often difficult to do, I ask that you look beyond the shop window facade, look into your vision for a city where decisions are made based on how they promote relationships and interactions and where sustainable development models are used as the template for economic growth. (Standing ovation.)
Hele Gym? 240 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Hele Gym. I come here today as a Korean-American and as an Asian-American resident of this city. I do not physically live in Chinatown but I do consider it my home, and I will fight to protect it until this righteous cause is won. Chinatown is not only a neighborhood for 4,000 residents, it is also a psychological home for over 250,000 Asian-Americans in the Delaware Valley region, and it is one of the many Chinatowns nationally that are under watch by National Asian-American groups, because this Chinatown, like many others, is under assault by downtown revitalization projects that have threatened to destroy them. Os while City Council considers the economic costs of this stadium, perhaps it needs to consider a cost which hits closer to home: the political repercussions of attacking this, the oldest, most established Asian community in this city and the political and reprehensible implications of such racial politics. Chinatown is a symbol, a beacon of how 241 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Asian-American ancestors, no matter what their ethnicity, had to scrape, struggle and fight to build a future for Asian-Americans in this country. When they were shut out of jobs, when they were told they could not live in other neighborhoods, when they were told over and over again that they did not belong, they never gave up. They built a community for themselves, their children, for us and our children, a home that stood against time for 130 years and here, as it is now, will stand for centuries more. Chinatown is our ground. It is sacred in a way only that people who are consistently marginalized from society can understand. That is why we as Asian-Americans, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Indian, we will not deny our responsibility to unite and defend this home and the memory of a common history. This stadium and this city's dismissal of our voices is a symbol of how Asian-Americans have been treated as invisible throughout history. Chinatown will not stand for it, Asian-Americans will not stand for it. We will fight back and we will always stands by 242 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Chinatown. (Applause.)
President Verna and members of Council, my name is Mary Yee. I am a member of Asian-Americans United and also a co-chair of the Technical Review Committee of the Stadium Out of Chinatown Coalition. I have been an active member of the Chinatown community for 30 years, and my affiliations have included: Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation, Yellow Seeds, and Asian-Americans Americans United. I have been involved firsthand in the struggles the community has faced to survive and thrive, despite government-sponsored Center City projects. Through the use of public dollars again, the current stadium proposal threatens to destroy Chinatown. Given the current estimates of 650 million for the Phillies stadium at the 11th Vine Street site, this amounts to $335 million more than the original city estimate for a facility. What does this extra money really buy 243 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 you? Well, if the stadium is built on the Chinatown site, this extra $335 million brings you the gradual death of a dynamic, self-starting, growing community of over 4,000 hard-working residents and over 200 businesses. It will pay for the deterioration in the quality of life and the erosion of the cultural and spiritual center for over a quarter million Asian residents in the Delaware Valley. It will pay for the destruction of an historic community of color in Center City. The crowds, trash, and traffic $335 million buys will eviscerate Chinatown, draining its life as a healthy Center City neighborhood where people earn a livelihood, rear their families, worship, and participate in their cultural organizations. Instead, Chinatown will gradually turn into a tourist shell of restaurants and stores with a couple of pockets of subsidized housing, like the ghost town that is DC's Chinatown since the MCI Stadium got built. So these extra millions buy a giant 40,000-seat tombstone for Chinatown, a monument, which would appropriately be silent for about 285 days a year. If the Mayor and Bruce Crawley and 244 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 their supporters are so able to raise this kind of money, why don't they put their efforts towards finding an extra $335 million to pay for what the people of Philadelphia really need. I'm a parent of two children who attend public schools. I work for the School District of Philadelphia, and I know firsthand the educational crisis we face. Are we making entertainment for suburbanites, who constitute 88 percent of the fans, according to the Phillies' own numbers, and for the corporations who will rent the luxury boxes a higher priority than the 200,000 or more school children who desperately need a quality education? I would challenge someone from the Mayor's Office to go to schools in clusters like Martin Luther King, Strawberry Mansion, Olney, or Audenried and tell students that the City can't find money to pay for them to have a decent after-school or summer program or to get them enough computers and books, but it can build a new stadium, which they're -- (Applause.)
Maybe this as good a civics 245 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 lesson as one an find to teach kids how adults deal with issues of public accountability, financial stewardship, and social responsibility; that is, how you should not do as we do, but as we say. Well, what good stuff can you actually get for $335 million? Well, for starters, it would pay for the Mayor, Bruce Crawley, and 10 other supporters of the 11th and Vine Street site 11 to spend a week in outer space on the Russian 12 spaceship MIR -- 13 (Laughter.) 14
-- at a cost of about 15 $20 million round trip. Of if Council would prefer, they could also have that extraterrestrial experience. (Laughter.)
More to the point, however, is that $335 million will buy the citizens of Philadelphia the following: The construction and land for 16 new community schools, like the state-of-the-art the one being planned jointly by the University of Pennsylvania Grad School of Education and the 246 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 School District. Each of these schools could serve over 620 children from pre-K to grade for 4 close to 10,000 students. 5 It could also pay for the salaries of 6 over 1,000 additional public school teachers for 5 7 years. 8 (Applause.)
Given the 175 elementary schools in our district, this translates to 5 additional teachers in each elementary school for 5 years. This could help lower class size or be used to provide added support for literacy and math instruction. $335 million also pays for the purchase of over 275,000 computers for schools. Each kid could get a computer, and you would still have enough left over to give over 250 computers to each of our 260 schools. (Applause.)
This amount of money also pays for the cost of 20 programs like the Scholarship Builders, sponsored by Merrill Lynch and the Urban League. Each of these programs provides for full mentoring and full college 247 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 tuition for about 220 children from 1st grade through college. This would mean that over 4,400 Philadelphia school children could have a promise of a bright future. In fact, $335 million would pay for class of in each elementary school in 7 the City, or an average of 17 1st grades per 8 Councilmatic district, to participate in the 9 Scholarship Builders Program. 10 This money would also pay for the cost 11 of preschools for 3- and 4-year-olds in the 12 District for almost 4 years. This would be a boon 13 for working mothers and parents who are trying to 14 reenter the workforce. It also would provide much 15 needed support to prepare children socially and 16 emotionally and academically for elementary 17 school. 18 $335 million also pays the cost of 19 subsidies for full-time day care for more than 20 7500 young children citywide for 5 years -- again, 21 a huge benefit for working families. 22 Our discussion here has focused a lot 23 on the dollars. There is no doubt that this is 24 absolutely necessary as we decide how are public 25 monies are going to be used and to what extent 248 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 that use will benefit the overwhelming majority of citizens who center their lives in Philadelphia. However, I also want to raise the issue of costs that are difficult or impossible to quantify. What about the social and emotional costs? Surely, if the stadium goes here, families and businesses will move to avoid the problems that masses of people and cars bring to an older inner-city working-class neighborhood. How do you count the anger and anxiety caused when your whole pattern of daily life must be disrupted to satisfy the pockets of others, or the sadness when relationships are broken between families and businesses and community institutions, or the loss of the place where your collective identity is centered? How can you put a price to the unique, synergistic qualities of a unique neighborhood, that essence and soul of Chinatown that you can't possibly recreate elsewhere? How can we attribute dollars amounts to the loss of a sense of community, loss of a sense of security in your own neighborhood, or the loss of faith in a purportedly democratic system which 249 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 is supposed to protect rights of minorities? How do you count these in the proforma, in the bottom line for the proposed stadium on the Chinatown site? Is the additional economic return of maybe $3 million, which is Jonathon Saidel's figures, worth all of this? Who and what are being sacrificed? And who is to gain? I leave these questions as challenges for the Mayor and members of City Council. We are here to speak truth to power. We are counting on you to hear our voices. Thank you. (Applause.)
Guand Bi Hung, Brenda Doyle, Gary Lee? (Witnesses come forward.)
Brendan Doyle is not here? Brendan Doyle? (Witness comes forward.)
Good evening, Council President Verna and other members who are present 250 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 here at this late hour. My name is Gary Lee. I respectfully request that City Council oppose the building of a baseball stadium at 12th and Vine Street. Building a stadium there would be bad for Philadelphia are, bad for the Phillies, and bad for Chinatown residents and businesses and other residents and businesses in the area. The City Administration is asking City Council to focus on the wrong question. The City Administration is asking the question, is building a stadium at 12th and Vine Street possible in terms of cost, parking, traffic flow and access? The right question which City Council should be focussing on is, what is the best site for a baseball stadium in terms of cost, parking, traffic flow, and access? Considering the enormous effect the location of a baseball stadium will have on the community in which it's located and the enormous amount of public funds which will be spent, a responsible government must consider which site is the best, not merely a sight that is possible. The City Administration failed to use a 251 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 process designed to select the best site for a stadium. This is abundantly evident by the fact that the City Administration selected 12th and Vine Street as the site, without even knowing the cost, the parking problems, the problems with traffic flow, and the problems with access. Indeed, it appears, from recent newspaper articles, that the City Administration has not yet completed an analysis of these issues. It seems that the prime reason the City Administration has selected the 12th and Vine Street site is that the City Administration believes that if the stadium is located downtown, fans spending before, during and after the game will be greater than if the stadium would be located in the sports complex because the sports complex is relatively isolated from restaurants and other forms of entertainment. However, Professor Andrew Zimbalist has submitted testimony today that directly contradicts this basic proposition and demonstrates that public economic benefits are not sufficient to justify the public subsidies in building a baseball stadium downtown. 252 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Therefore, I will not remark on this issue except to say that once again, the City Administration fails to ask the right question. The right analysis would compare all of the factors, costs, parking, traffic flow, and access at 12th and Vine Street with other sites which are close to restaurants and entertainment, such as the 30th Street Station or the Delaware and Spring Garden Street site. Building a stadium at 12th and Vine Street will also be bad for the Phillies. The Phillies have stated that they don't want the stadium to be built at 12th and Vine Street. It will be more costly for them, and the delay of building the stadium there will significantly diminish the revenues that they will receive if the stadium were built at another location. Building a stadium at 12th and Vine Street will also be bad for Chinatown residents and businesses and the other residents and businesses in the area. City Council has already heard from John Struble that building a stadium 12th and Vine Street will be bad for the other residents and businesses in that area, so I will 253 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 not discuss this anymore. But I will discuss some of economic effects on Chinatown. In considering the effects on Chinatown, one must know about Chinatown. Chinatown is not just a collection of restaurants. It's a home for more than 4,000 people, it's a center for more than 250,000 Asian-Americans in the Delaware Valley who worship, shop, play, attend school, receive day care, and participate in Asian cultural activities.
Chinatown has three churches, two Buddhist temples, an elementary and middle school, three preschools, a senior citizen residence and center, medical facilities for western-style medicine, and medical facilities for eastern-style medicine. Building a stadium at 12th and Vine Street will have a devastating impact on the quality of life of the people who come to Chinatown and the people who live in Chinatown. However, because this hearing is limited to the finance aspects of building a stadium, I will not discuss the quality-of-life issues, although they are very significant. If City Council does not decide to 254 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 reject the proposal to build a stadium at 12th and Vine, because of the enormous financial costs, I urge City Council to hold hearings regarding the other issues involved in building a stadium at 12th and Vine Street, including the effect on the quality of life, the parking problems, the traffic flow problems, the access problems, environmental problems from asbestos and PCBs, and the problems which would be felt by air quality. Contrary to the belief of the City Administration, building a stadium at 12th and Vine Street will not have a positive economic effect on Chinatown; it will have the opposite effect. )
Instead, factors like the loss of parking spaces, the increased cost of parking, and the loss of time from traffic congestion will cause a significant loss of business and economic hardship. Like most other businesses, Chinatown's business success requires available and affordable parking. The existing parking in Chinatown is not adequate. If a stadium is built at 12th and Vine 255 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Street, the baseball fans will use the parking spaces which Chinatown customers currently use. The proposal for a stadium at 12th and Vine plans to include only 4,500 parking spaces. These parking spaces will be available to the people who buy or rent the sky boxes. The stadium will have a capacity of 45,000 people. The proposed plan is for the rest of the fans to park south of Vine Street, which makes Chinatown the closest site for parking. Fans will use up the parking spaces which are now used by residents and customers of Chinatown. Although it is possible that some of the fans will patronize some of the Chinatown restaurants, the net effect will be the loss of customers and the closing of some businesses. (Applause.)
Fans will be competing with Chinatown customers at what is usually the busiest time for restaurants -- dinner time. Moreover, when the baseball games are held on Fridays, Saturdays, or Sundays, which are usually the busiest days for Chinatown restaurants, the loss will be even more devastating. 256 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Chinatown restaurants need a successful dinner and weekend trade to survive, much like retailers need a successful Christmas season to survive. Furthermore, almost half of the businesses in Chinatown are not even restaurants. There are businesses such as beauty salons, travel agencies, Asian grocery stores, Asian video rentals, pharmacies, insurance agencies, physicians, accountants, and lawyers, whose customers are predominantly Asian, from all over the Delaware Valley. Their busiest time is the weekends. It is highly unlikely that any of the fans will patronize these businesses. Unlike the restaurants, these businesses will only lose customers. They will not have any fans as customers. Baseball games, especially on the weekends, will cause a significant loss of customers to these businesses. In addition to the loss of customers from the lack of parking spaces, Chinatown business will also lose customers from the cost of parking. The cost of parking on the day games are scheduled will significantly increase. For 257 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 customers, one of the main attractions of Chinatown is the reasonable prices for food. If parking is significantly increased, the cost of patronizing Chinatown businesses will no longer be reasonable, and customers will go elsewhere. Even if a potential customer can find a parking space and is willing to pay a higher price for parking, Chinatown businesses will still lose potential customers from the traffic congestion on game days. Fans will use the streets of Chinatown for parking or to go to the stadium and drop off their passengers. The result will be a traffic congestion nightmare. Although other restaurants in Center City may expect to increase business from building a stadium at 12th and Vine Street, because fans will be competing with the potential restaurants, customers for parking south of Vine Street, Center City restaurants may lose their regular customers, and business may decrease, not increase. That they are not considering these impacts is to their peril. In conclusion, City Council should reject the proposal to build a stadium at 12th and 258 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Vine Street. The selection of 12th and Vine Street was a rush to judgment that failed to consider all relevant issues. It also failed to compare all of the issues of the Vine Street site with all of the issues of the other sites. This important decision should not be made by asking the wrong questions, by ignoring the right questions, or by making a rush to judgment. Responsible government must ask the right questions. Responsible government must take the time to carefully consider all of the issues. The Phillies oppose the stadium site at 12th and Vine, the effect on the quality of life on the businesses and residents of Chinatown and the businesses and residents of the other areas of the site will be devastating and the effect on the company of Chinatown and the other areas around the site will be devastating. Please stop this now. (Applause.)
The next three witnesses are Jeff Lewis, John Nhan, and George Moy. (Witnesses come forward.) 259 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
My name is George Moy. I live in the Far Northeast. However, my wife thinks I live in Chinatown, given the amount of time I volunteer my time in Chinatown. I tried my best to come up with a short statement, struggled with it, and came up with a two-thirds of a page long statement. However, while I was sitting here listening to all the other statements, I came up with just as much comments as I prepared. To begin with, I want to just mention that Professor Williams mentioned the number of communities that were helped by Mayor Rizzo, and I wanted to add to that list that he was the first to help Chinatown in its struggle against the Vine Street Expressway. He provided the funding for a study of the problems that Chinatown was facing and provided the first grant to build -- for us to be able to sponsor th4e first 15 houses for relocating the people that were being displaced by the Vine Street Expressway and other developments. 260 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 In fact, at that time, Chinatown lost about one-quarter of its land, and we were forced to live in a compacted four-square-block area. Our only hope then was to expand north after we worked on the core of Chinatown, and that's now being cut off. These are some of my random thoughts that I just came up with. Chinatown is a cultural center and a tourist attraction. Destroying Chinatown is too high a price to pay. Is this cost being considered? How does one measure such costs? Our community is not adamantly against a new stadium, but it should not cost an additional $300 million to build, especially when the public schools have to shut down meaningful programs or the City employees are probably going to be asked to eat crow in the coming contract negotiations. The $300 million additional cost would go a long way to solving many of these problems. (Applause.)
The City coffers have limited funds. Senator Albright alluded to the adding of 261 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 additional lanes on Vine Street. Does this mean that Vine Street will be widened? Are we back to square one when Chinatown fought the full-scale expressway 35 years ago? Is this another added cost that is not being considered? In the past, promises were made to our community, and broken in short order. The Hawthorne Hotel promised to hire people from the neighborhood, and I don't know of any of our people who were hired. A promise made, a promise broken. Chinatown made sacrifices for the Convention Center. Our only position then was that those affected be relocated to replace the facilities as near equal as they were -- as they presently owned or lived in before being displaced -- the building to be built before they were displaced. Also, that the local shows, such as the flower show, be kept out of the new center, and that no food be prepared or served in the center. That was another promise that did not last long. Before Chinatown knew it, the Civic Center was closed and the flower shows were 262 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 conducted at the new center. Parking and stopping in Chinatown was prohibited at this time, and the Chinatown businesses suffered. Is this what they mean when they claim that -- is this what they mean when the claim is made that Chinatown will benefit? Another promise, another broken promise. I commend the Councilpersons present at these proceedings who feel that it is important enough to hear what is being said. I only hope those not present will take their responsibilities seriously and review all that is being said today before making your decision. At the present -- have you seen the present raucous behavior of the Lakers fans as they run amok? It was on the 12 o'clock news. They destroyed an auto distributor nearby, the showroom and eight cars in it were destroyed. A police car was overturned and a TV van was also destroyed. If the police can't protect their own property, what will happen to Chinatown should the Phillies win? (Applause.)
If a stadium is built at 11th 263 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 and Vine Street, we pray that the Phillies will never win a pennant. (Applause.)
The proponents of a stadium at 11th and Vine Street were publicized in this morning's paper, and they aptly named themselves "BAT," B-A-T. Of course, a bat is often used to beat into submission anyone who gets in the holder's way. Also, a bat (unintelligible) descends on its victim and sucks their life blood. (Applause.)
Why are they not here today to testify? Is it because the stadium at 11th and Vine is a done deal? Is this democracy in action? Now, for my prepared statement. Our Chinatown is the kind of neighborhood that should be replicated and not imposed upon. Much more tax revenues go into the City coffers than what is spent by the government in services. It is a neighborhood where businesses and residents coexist, where crime, juvenile delinquency, and graffiti are practically nonexistent. These are factors that do not come by just by chance but by 264 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 a concerted effort of concerned citizens, the organizations that serve people, particularly the three churches, and the people themselves. To say that the stadium is not in Chinatown is to ignore the negative effects and the impact that the stadium will have on the quality of life. Noise and air pollution, traffic and parking problem does not stop at the boundaries of the site. Otherwise, why do other neighborhoods oppose a stadium building built in their backyard? They would at least have hundreds of feet between their neighborhood and the stadium; whereas some of the residents in our community would be living less than 50 feet away, only across the street. Will they be protected by a 40-foot high noise wall? Will they be able to park their vehicles? How will they even be able to get home when they encounter gridlock? Chinatown is a place where newcomers can find work, even though they may have difficulty with the English language. Although parents may be working long hours, by having their families in the vicinity, they are able to maintain a cohesive family structure. This is in 265 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 contrast to the commuting public, where some children have minimal contact with their parents. Living in Chinatown is a must, for it would be dangerous for working parent to take SEPTA to get home after leaving work after or a.m. in the morning.
Mr. Moy, I -- I have to ask you to summarize. Everybody here who will be patient enough to stay will be heard. If you're not on the list, you will still be able to be heard if you wish to testify. Somebody's got to be the last, so please don't feel bad if it happens to be you. I'm saying that to maybe a hundred people that are in this room. But everybody is going to be heard, we think it's very important. But we're going to be asking everybody to please stay if possible into a two-minute time capsule and at the very most three minutes because, otherwise, we may be here till or in the morning. But if you're game, we're going to be game, because we think everybody's voice is important. (Applause.) 266 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
Placing the stadium at 11th and Vine Street will surely stunt the growth of our community. The conflicting demands of property will tear the very fabric of the community. Undesirable elements will once again afflict our neighborhood. They are the bars, prostitution, drug pushers, and others. Property values will skyrocket and will be unaffordable, especially for those who need housing the most. At the very list, an impartial impact study is needed for anyone to be able to make an informed decision regarding the location of the stadium. Please do not make a mockery of democracy by deciding before the all the facts are known. Thank you.
Mai Huynh, Lisa Cancelleri, and Dan McShane. (Applause.) (Witnesses come forward.)
Please identify 267 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 yourself for the record.
Good evening. Good evening, Councilmembers. My name is Mai Huynh, and I am a taxpayer and a registered voter. I wish President Verna was here because I live in Philadelphia and I work -- I'm sorry?
Oh, okay, good. Because I live in the 40th Ward, 33rd Division, and my Councilperson is Council President Verna Anna C. Verna. So I want her to know that. I am also a member of SOCC, which stands for "Stadium Out of Chinatown Coalition." The committee of SOCC had invited Mr. Neil DuMause, who is a coauthor of Field of Schemes: How the Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit, to testify. But due to a conflict in his schedule, Mr. DuMause was unable to come and testify in person. However, he was able to send us his written testimony. On his behalf, I will now read Mr. DuMause's written testimony. "Thank you to the Councilmembers for allowing me to submit this testimony and Mai Wen 268 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 for presenting it, even though my schedule did not allow me to travel to this meeting in person. "When the owners of the sports team and their allies in public office want to convince the public to spend public dollars for a new stadium or arena, they always say the same thing: 'Everybody else is doing it.' They point to the new stadiums going up in cities like Cleveland and Baltimore and Houston and insist that this is just the way of the sports world. If you want to play in the big leagues, you have to cough up the big bucks for a new facility. "When I first started researching and writing about the stadium game five years ago, there was a kernel of truth to this. But after spending an estimated of $2 billion a year on new sports facilities throughout the 1990s, cities are increasingly questioning what they get in return. "In Minneapolis, Birmingham, Miami, New York City, Houston, and the (unitelligible) region of North Carolina, citizens and elected officials have said no to public money for private stadiums. In San Francisco, after the citizenry said no four times, the Giants baseball team 269 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 finally agreed to build a stadium with private money, a stadium, Pacific Bell Park, that is now considered one of the finest new ballparks built in recent years." (Applause.)
"And teams in Montreal, Miami, Oakland, and Minnesota are all considering building ballparks with private funds in the face of growing opposition to public subsidies." (Applause.)
"One reason that cities are increasingly saying no is that the claims of economic windfalls from new stadiums just don't pan out. I have yet to meet an independent economist who believes that pro sports facilities have any significant impact on their city's economy. Lake Forest College Professor Robert Body (ph.) said recently that in his research of 30 cities over 30 years, in no instance was the economic impact of professional sports, either by building a stadium, attracting a team or losing a team, measurably different from zero. "And as for new jobs, stadium projects consistently come in at a cost of 250,000 per job 270 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 created, one of the worst ratios ever seen. University of Chicago economist Allen Sanderson out that you could create more jobs by going up in a helicopter over your city and throwing the money out the window." (Laughter.) (Applause.)
"Even the most well-regarded new stadiums haven't paid off. Baltimore's Camden Yards brings in 3 million a year in taxes and costs the State of Maryland 13 million a year in bond payments. In fact, stadium 14 projects only serve to funnel public money into the pockets of owners and players, many of whom live far out of state, while bringing only traffic and disruptions to the neighborhoods where they are sited." (Applause.)
"In such cities as Chicago, San Diego, and Newark, people have been displaced from their homes and businesses to make way for ballparks and arena projects that benefitted no 24 one but team owners. "In Springfield, Massachusetts, earlier 271 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 this year, a judge ruled that using eminent domain to seize land for a private sports team was against the law, since it was not a genuine 'public purpose.'" (Applause.)
"Yesterday in Boston, a very similar public hearing as this one was held to discuss whether or not the city and state will spend upwards of $275 million for a new stadium for the Red Sox. This project, once considered a near certainty, is now foundering as neighborhood residents and their elected officials are asking hard questions about just who would profit from this immense public expenditure." (Applause.)
"Philadelphia, like Boston, is now facing a choice. You can go down and history as the city that spent the most public money to displace the most people for the benefit of a private sport franchise, or you can join with Minneapolis, San Francisco, and the other cities that are just saying no to sport subsidies demands." (Applause.) 272 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
"The decision is in your hands." I thank you for your time. (Applause.)
I would like to suggest that you might repeat your initial statement about President Verna. She's here.
I wanted you to know that I live in your district and I am a taxpayer and I'm a registered voter, and I voted for you because I believed that you would do the right thing. And I'm glad that you're here and I'm glad that it's a -- never mind I won't say that.
Thank you for your patience in waiting to testify. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name's Dan McShane and I'm with Liberty Yards Association, an advocacy 273 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 group for the Schmidts Brewery stadium site. With all respect to the people who have come here to speak about taxes and stadiums, I am here to speak in support of a stadium, a stadium responsibly built, responsibly paid for. I have a different perspective on the tax debate. I am interested in how many City tax dollars are spent on a stadium. The current proposal has a dollar figure that will require too much in City spending, and if it doesn't require the City spending, it will price City residents out of the stadium that we are ourselves building. A responsibly built stadium could draw sources from outside this community; the kind of sources that we can barely get to pay for school books could be brought in to do this development project. And if it's placed responsibly, it will have the kind of development, if it can be combined with already-in-place development concepts, one of them being the waterfront that we've all waited for 40 years. We have distributed to Council a plan for the Schmidts Brewery stadium site, which shows its inclusion on the waterfront, with 7,000 spaces 274 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 of onsite parking in place. What we're paving over for parking, as opposed to, say, the Beaux Arts building, is strewn industrial -- post-use industrial sites and nuisance nightclubs. Some of them have had shootings in the past, and it would be a great relief for the neighborhood to have a well-groomed parking facility. The parking facility would be located across the street from the incinerator and point extend up to the Schmidts Brewery site and would allow for development at the incinerator site. The incinerator site is owned by the City and could be utilized in this transaction to obtain the Schmidts Brewery site at no cost to City taxpayers in a tax-free -- a negotiable tax-free exchange for Bart Blatstein (ph.), because that incinerator site will be the most valuable waterfront property, perhaps in the world, because we'll have a stadium site directly located -- it is directly north of the incinerator site that an 18-story -- three 18-story high-end condos and 200 townhomes will be built. To move along, I'd just like to quickly go through the politics of this issue. A couple 275 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 myths. A 40,000-seat stadium can fit on the Schmidts site. You can do 44,000 if you go over Second Street. Why spend the money? They can't put anybody in the Vet to begin with. And if it's okay for San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Montreal, Boston, and Chicago to do with 40,000 or less seats, certainly it's okay for here in Philadelphia. This stadium is based on a Wrigley Field concept. If it's within community, it should be 40,000. That's a bone that we could send to the community and the (unintelligible.) I've gotten into the neighborhood discussions, so I'll quickly discuss the neighborhood situation. We have a petition here of close to a thousand names in support of the Schmidts Brewery stadium site from the neighborhoods of Fishtown and Kensington South, Norris Square and Northern Liberties. We will, by some time in July, have literally thousands, most of them drawn from the Councilmatic district which includes the Schmidts Brewery site. I will submit this for the Council. We have run out of money; we could only produce three today. (Copy of petition not submitted to the 276 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 stenographer for attachment hereto.)
To move on, there is great support for this stadium in the Hispanic community. Dr. Sierra (ph.) of the Association of Puerto Ricans (unintelligible), Carlos Matos (ph.), a prominent figure, and thousands of names and people who are signing petitions from the Hispanic community support this stadium site. Quickly, running down the politics, Frank DiCicco is here, and I'm very happy that he's here. This was Frank DiCicco's idea. It was a visionary idea and it was the right idea then and it's the right idea now, and I really thank him for bringing it up and bringing it into play. Anna Verna put us on the map by identifying this site at something to be looked at seriously at the first Town Meeting, and we thank you for that. Michael Nutter and Marie Lederer wish to beautify Girard Avenue. This is one of the most beautiful things about this plan: it just doesn't develop a waterfront where a bunch of suburbanites can come and spend their money; it develops neighborhoods. It gives something to 277 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 neighborhoods besides halfway houses and low-income housing. This is the way this kind of a project ought to be spent. We do deserve to rehab Girard Avenue, and these people -- Michael Nutter and Marie Lederer -- are already in the process of doing that. They need help our. The unions should support this because this, unlike spending money on useless moving of major public systems, this would -- this project would have tens of millions of dollars in additional labor on the waterfront. That's where we should put it. Bob Borski thinks we should put it there; he took this administration on a river tour and he said, Let's develop the waterfront. Here's something that Bob Borski can support, Bob Borski's aware of this plan. John Street opened up this process and he, we need to thank the most sound, and that may sound incongruous in this room, but we don't exist without John Street, our site does not exist without the process. We're going through the process, the process will determine that Chinatown is undoable. I'll summarize -- I think I've overrun 278 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 my time and appreciate your deference. We think that if the Chinatown site -- when the Chinatown site goes down, the Center City Business District, including the Convention Center or Visitors Bureau and the Central Philadelphia Development Corporation, will line up in support of this site. It has the historic trolley line that runs from Penn's Landing across Girard Avenue and down to the Convention Center. It has six Market-Frankford el stops at every key destination in Center City, and it's eight minutes to the furthest stop. That's the kind of development Center City really does need. And, lastly, I'd just like to again thank Anna Verna. Thank you, Miss Verna, for allowing us this opportunity, and please help us get the serious attention that this kind of a solution deserves. Thank you.
The next three names are Robert Sklaroff, Vincent McAffery, and 279 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Reverend Betz. (Witness comes forward.)
Greetings. I'm Bob Sklaroff, and promise I'll talk for only two minutes. You have a copy of my testimony, nine pages single-spaced, and I just want to give you brief key points enclosed therein. (Copy of Mr. Sklaroff's testimony not submitted to stenographer for attachment hereto.)
Number one, it is clear that people do not want to bankrupt the City, which has tremendous needs for health care and for educational purposes, by trying to build a mausoleum or two. So the bottom line point is, what can be done to try to minimize the costs thereof? And I think, looking at David Boldt's column in the paper this morning, it is clear that the business community is really not thrilled with the choice at 12th and Vine. People would be excited about a site and people would flock to supporting it, I feel, if 30th Street Station, northwest of 30th Street, the Powellton Yards, is the way to go. I testified twice on this issue at the two other 280 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 hearings in City Council here before the Mayor, and I was surprised to note that after my first testimony, when this site was not even on the map, that then they came back the second time and they still didn't deal with it. And yet they recommended 12th and Vine without having done proper study. So I have a lot of problems with what's occurred. The focus on finances, which, I recognize already, listening to KYW, has been effectively discussed here, suggests that it's not a (unintelligible) that any time you have any kind of stadium that, if it's in Center City, is going to automatically generate synergy and pay for itself. So my feeling -- and I've done a lot of research on this again, which is documented with names and phone numbers. I think basically, if you end taking the 30th Street Station site, which is a underutilized railroad yard, according to the redistricting filing that was initiated by Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell last September, it was then rezoned from P-2 to C-5 high concentration industrial, that these lands, which are already cleared, could easily be utilized for 281 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 the stadium. It's 70 acres -- you only need to 17, according to some of the people with whom I've spoken in the real estate business. Therefore, I would like to strongly suggest that you look at 30th Street Station northwest, not where the post office is. And what I did today was, I finally had a chance to speak with a man named Steve Nelson, whose credentials are, as cited, he works in the Montgomery County Commissioner's Office. 'Cause I feel that if you have as many as 83 percent of the people driving to the stadium games and 60 percent or so come from the suburbs, then the region has a role in potentially creating a franchise to finance the creation and construction and maintenance of a parking garage, which would decrease the overall cost, enhance regionalism, etc. I went onto the Internet and downloaded a couple of Web sites, which illustrate how there can be regional cooperating when projects are generated of quality and which excite the people involved. So my strong suggestion is that these issues be researched as much as possible. And I'm willing to answer any questions 282 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 you might have.
Brendan Doyle was here and apparently had to leave. She did leave a copy of testimony, which we will make a copy available to the stenographer. (Copy of Brendan Doyle's written testimony attached hereto.)
I'm switching roles with Vince McAffery. He's not here today, but we're both on the same team. My name is Mitch Deighan. I'm testifying today once again as a resident of Northern Liberties, home of the old Schmidts Brewery at Second and Girard. Probably the greatest reason I'm proud to call Northern Liberties my home is my neighborhood's long-standing tradition of tolerance and diversity. I often refer to Northern Liberties' extreme degree of integration 283 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 as futuristic. The Northern Liberties model is one which defines my neighborhood as truly reflective of William Penn's vision for Pennsylvania. As we discuss the financial elements of our citywide stadium equation, we are here in tis room of hopes and dreams and public discourse. Positioned high above us is the great and beloved statue of William Penn. I noted one bitter winter morning a few months ago that Mr. Penn, from high atop this remarkable building, is looking right at the old Schmidts Brewery site, which is in a direct line of vision from City Hall to Penn Treaty on the shores of the Delaware. The symbolism of Mr. Penn's gaze towards the Brewery site struck me as a kind of coincidence that had value to me as an artistic type of person. But I would ask the Finance Committee, the City Council, the Mayor and the Phillies this: What is the value of setting a course of action on this baseball stadium issue that would be the most true to ourselves and our own traditions as a city that's known nationally, and perhaps internationally, as a city of neighborhoods? 284 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Let me ask you this: When each of us goes out to buy anew pair of shoes, don't we first and foremost choose a pair that fits? It goes without saying that a shoe that doesn't fit has little value, but the shoe that fits is the shoe that's comfortable; and, thus, we get the full value for our dollar. Now on the threshold of a billion dollars investment, we must certainly choose a site that would be the perfect fit, a perfect marriage of a development need and a site opportunity. " The most loved ballparks in American history are in this rarely accessed category. Yes, the eastern boundary of Schmidts relates directly to our burgeoning waterfront district, like the Camden Yards ballpark site in 285 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Baltimore. But at Second and Girard, we have an urban fabric that has the feel of the era when baseball grew into the hearts of Americans of all walks of life and of every ethnic and racial heritage. A ballpark at Schmidts would tie in perfectly with Philadelphia's mammoth efforts to build on our history. The old Schmidts Brewery is now owned by a member of the Mayor's Stadium Committee, who has stated publicly that if the City and Phillies decide to build our new ballpark on the Schmidts site, he'll be, quote/unquote, totally supportive. This is an exact quote as stated before a monthly meeting of the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association. A stadium at Schmidts would not only save the taxpayers and Phillies hundreds of millions of dollars, but would also result in a place that would be widely acknowledged as a perfect fit of a need, a site, and an opportunity to promote growth in a part of old Philadelphia, which has already demonstrated a glowing dynamic for imaginative and progressive reinvestment. The Schmidts site is right on I-95 and the newly 286 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 rebuilt Market-Frankford el. The trolleys, including historic trolleys, will be running along Girard Avenue again before too long. As our two architectural renderings show, a stadium at Schmidts would relate superbly to Philadelphia's new Center City hotels, the Convention Center, and our preeminent historic sites.
And since the Schmidts site is owned by a single person and a member of the Mayor's Stadium Committee, the entire development process would be expedited, assuming the City and Phillies would want to create a new American ballpark which has the potential to be assessed as one of the greatest in the history of our nation and at a fraction of the price it would cost to build elsewhere in the Center City realm. Thank you.
The next three names Shirley Young, Frank Fortino, and Paul Uyehara.
And we were just given a letter from Lois DiDomenico, which 287 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 will also be made a part of the record. A copy will be given to the stenographer. (Copy of Lois DiDomenico's written testimony attached hereto.) (Witnesses come forward.)
Good evening. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Okay. My name is Shirley Young, and I'm a homeowner in the Hing Wah Yuen community, which is located two blocks away from the proposed stadium site. I oppose it because I believe that it is detrimental to the neighborhood to build in Chinatown. I grew up in Chinatown as a little kid. By then, it was mostly consisting of restaurants, maybe one or two beauty shops. Now Chinatown has developed. It's growing, houses are being proposed. I am one of the homeowners, I am a part of the expansion of Chinatown. You know, I'm dedicated to living in Philadelphia. I don't believe that putting a stadium at 12th and Vine would actually be helpful, being that for economic reasons, something has to give 288 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 way. You're going to put parking, accommodate for the stadium. What happens to the businesses and the residential people that live in Chinatown? It's a neighborhood that is developing and still developing that could be put to good use. There's homeowners at that stadium site. Why get rid of a good thing? I believe that the stadium should be put elsewhere, not at 12th and Vine. It's too congested. That's all I have to say.
Good evening. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Excuse me, sir. Before you start to testify, we do still have a number of people that wish to testify, so I think, in fairness to everyone, perhaps we could time everyone for three minutes. I think if you 289 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 can't say something in three minutes, it's not worth saying. Okay, thank you please proceed.
Good evening. My name is Paul Uyehara. I live in University City and work in Center City. I have lived and worked in the City of Philadelphia for the last years. I 9 have two kids who have always attended public 10 schools in the City. 11 I took my time today to come and tell 12 you, President Verna and Councilwoman Blackwell, 13 Councilman DiCicco and all the at-large 14 representatives in particular my position on 15 stadium financing. It is very simple. I do not 16 want $1 of my taxes going to build a stadium in 17 Chinatown. 18 (Applause.) 19
I don't care if you take 20 it from my is wage taxes, my real estate taxes, my 21 license fees, my sales taxes, my parking fines, or 22 my business taxes. I don't even care if you take 23 it from taxes I don't even have to pay -- not one dollar. (Applause.) 290 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
I don't go to Chinatown, I'm not Chinese. In fact, I'm the immediate past president of the local chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League, a national civil rights organization. I'm also a member of the SOCC Coalition and a member of Asian-Americans United. I think the proposal to place a stadium at 12th Vine is one of the most ill advised decisions I can remember of the City. It ranks right up there with dropping a bomb on a house. (Laughter.) (Applause.)
I can tell you ten reasons why the decision is bad public policy, racially discriminatory, and doomed to fail, but we're here to talk about financing. I'm not the only person today who will tell you that the School District is more deserving of financial support than a bunch of rich guys who plan to make more money one way or the other off this billion-dollar trough. I'd rather spend the money to give City workers a well-deserved raise -- at least they'll spend it in the City. 291 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 (Applause.)
The cheerleaders pushing the Chinatown site claim that it is the best way to bull up the City and create excitement, more business and more revenues, but let's face it, people are leaving the City -- and it's not to seek excitement in the suburbs. Ask any Realtor, any Realtor, to identify the most common reason for homeowners to sell property and leave town. I have no doubt what the answer will be. It's because they have a child just about old enough to either start school or move up from elementary school. If that kid cannot get into a school that the parents perceive to be a good one, they'll pack their bags and leave town if they can't afford a private school. It happens every year in every part of the City. (Applause.)
And the loss of population that goes along with that is one of the key problems in the City of Philadelphia. It's eroding our tax base, the schools, our housing stock, the neighborhoods, and everything else. None of those families with kids will stay because 292 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 they can see the Phillies play a game in Chinatown. (Applause.)
They will be able to stay if public schools are able to provide a sound education. The truth of the matter is that if you took a billion dollars and spent it on education, that would build up the city, create excitement, more business, and more revenues. It would also increase the population here and increase the tax base here. That is a real return on investment, that is sound public policy. If you really believe that a ballpark merits taxpayers' support, you still should reject the Chinatown site. It is by far the most expensive. And I can assure you that it will cause the most delay, the most protests, the most litigation, and the most acrimony such that it if ever gets built, John Street will not be the mayor because he won't be able to run again by that time. (Applause.)
Chinatown is a strong and vibrant community and must continue to grow and 293 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 needs space to do so. Isn't it strange that someone on the fourth floor could threaten a good neighborhood based on mere conjecture and suppositions? The cheerleaders say that all the benefits of the stadium will spread all across Center City to the hotels, the restaurants, and to all of us. The cheerleaders also say that all the bad things about the stadium will stay inside of its walls. Just ask the good people of South Philly if that is true when you live next to a stadium. You can't build a city by wrecking a viable neighborhood. I ask that you ignore the cheerleaders, listen to the people, listen to the economists, listen to the neighborhoods, do the right thing. We will be watching you. Thank you.
I'm Zahkiyyah Abdul-Raheem, and I represent East Mt. Airy Neighbors. First of all, I would like to thank our sisters and brothers from Chinatown for the food, it was delicious and it was very much needed. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
East Mt. Airy Neighbors is a 35-year-old civic association that has been fighting for 35 years for the rights of the individuals, of people, of residents. We want to go on record as saying that we wholeheartedly support our Chinatown neighbors in protesting the stadium being built in Chinatown. I was part of the March on 12th and Vine, and I did sit in, and I'm proud to have been a part of that march. (Applause.)
East Mt. Airy is composed of 18,000 households, and in each household is at least one voter and one taxpayer. And we want to go a little further by saying we 295 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 want not one dollar, not one tax dollar spent on stadiums in Philadelphia until our schools are adequate for the children. (Applause.)
No one has ever moved in and out of a city based on a stadium, but they will leave a city based on inadequate schools, based on unaffordable housing, and based on crime. (Applause.)
Councilmember DiCicco spoke about the benefits of a stadium, about entertainment, and about enjoyable things for children to go to, better facilities, but what good are they if Johnny can't read? (Applause.)
The plight of our homeless is something we can no longer afford to turn our backs on, especially since most of our workers in Philadelphia are not earning a living wage and are one paycheck away from being homeless. (Applause.)
Crime speaks for 296 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 itself. We continuously say that drugs are destroying the fabric of our families, of our neighborhoods, of our communities, and of our nation. Well, I'm here to say that there's a new cartel, and it's not cocaine or crack. The new cartel is greed. (Applause.)
The new cartel will only produce poverty, will only produce homelessness, and, worst of all, will only produce continued ignorance if our schools are not improved. Thank you very much.
Good evening. I'll be brief 'cause I concur with most of what's been said already, why repeat it. I am Harry Hyde, Jr. of Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Concerned Citizens of the Delaware Valley, at P.O. Box 561, Swarthmore, PA, 19081. Although I'm not a resident of Philadelphia, I represent an organization of which 297 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 more than one-third are members and a plurality among counties in the metropolitan area are Philadelphia residents. The majority of our meetings are held in Philadelphia. Incidentally, I was born in this city. And since we had Father's Day a couple days ago, I'd like to mention that my dad was the man who created the slogan "Philadelphia, The World's Workshop," back about 70 years ago. Philadelphia, The World's Workshop. Concerned Citizens of the Delaware Valley, CCDV, is a small but broad-based and broad-scoped, nonpartisan, nonprofit, and non-sectarian citizens group founded in 1974. While we're small in numbers, our membership is interfaith, interracial, and intergenerational. Our Philadelphia members include residents of various sections of the City. CCDV has taken a position opposed to public funding of commercial sports facilities. The City has many other needs -- education, health and human services, law enforcement and public safety, public transportation, quality of life, housing and community development, and quite a 298 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 number of other things that are more important than baseball stadiums or football stadiums, for that matter. We respectfully urge Council to consider these needs, along with information that we've already heard from expert testimony. And an important consideration to look into is how many Philadelphia residents actually attend commercial sports events, particularly of the Philadelphia Phillies, because that's apparently the big-ticket item expense-wise, and what percentage of those attending the events are actual residents of Philadelphia. When I wrote this testimony, I was of the mistaken understanding that the Chinatown site was not an issue and all we would be talking about would be funding, so I did not include it in my write-up. However, I would like to say very briefly that our organization also wants to go on record as definitely being opposed to the Chinatown site. Thank you for your time and attention. (Applause.)
Thank you. 299 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Is Lois DiDomenico in the audience? She did leave a letter, and that will be made a part of the record.
The next three names are Harry Chin, Sara McEneaney, and Tony DeSantis. (Witnesses come forward.)
Again, I'm going to request that every speaker be considerate of the others that want an opportunity to testify. And, again, we will be timing you three minutes. Please identify yourself for the record an proceed with your testimony.
My name is Sara McEneaney. President Verna, Councilmembers, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. As I said, my name is Sara McEneaney. I'm an artist and a member of the Stadium Out of Chinatown Coalition. I have lived and worked 11th and Hamilton Streets for 21 years. As a Philadelphia resident and taxpayers of 27 years, who has never missed an 300 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 election or a primary, I am totally opposed to any tax dollars being spent on stadiums for wealthy professional sports teams. The Phillies and the Eagles have the resources to build their own stadiums. The Flyers and the Sixers did it with minimal subsidy at the First Union Center, the Giants did it in San Francisco after taxpayers voted down a publicly stadium four times. Those examples should be the model, not the corporate welfare schemes that were pulled off in Baltimore, Cleveland, Denver, and Detroit just to name a few. Unless teams are publicly owned, they should not be receiving public tax dollars. (Applause.)
If new taxes are going to be levied, the revenues raised should go to the City and not to stadiums. Don't think a tax on car rentals won't affect City taxpayers. Many residents do not own cars because of the high cost of insurance and parking. These taxpayers do the City a service by not having a car in the street on a daily basis and renting cars when they need them. Philadelphia's current resources and 301 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 any future ones raised are desperately needed for our schools, public health centers, libraries, recreation centers, and police and fire departments. To be more specific, I'd like to refer to the Philadelphia Coalition for Kids newly released study, Report Card 200, the Well-being of Philadelphia's Youth and Children. In a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial on June 15th, Naomi Post, Co-Chair of the Coalition, said: "I am sorry to report that Philadelphia is not doing particularly well by our kids. Our purpose is to point out where we are not doing well and illuminate where we are making progress in hopes of replicating successful strategies." Here are just a few of Ms. Post's stated priorities: Reach U.S. government goals for low birth weight babies, infant mortality, and immunizations; Remove barriers to enrolling children in subsidized child care; Learn more about the relationship between declining temporary assistance for needy 302 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 families enrollments and increasing rates of homeless children and families; Ensure that savings from welfare reform are used to strengthen families and address the unmet needs of low-income communities; Consider expanding programs, such as the Youth Violence Reduction Project and Operation Sunrise, that appear to reduce youth violence and crime; Address public school needs, such as competitive teachers' salaries, capital improvements, smaller class size, early childhood education, new books and technology. No one needs to remind Naomi Post that his is "The Year of the Child." Hopefully, she'll remind her husband, Mayor John Street. To sum up, I ask all of you to refuse to use hard-earned tax dollars for private-interest stadiums. Councilman DiCicco, I live and work in your district. In the past, I have found you to be an intelligent and reasonable representative, especially when you worked with Chinatown and the north of Vine community where I live for the 303 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 zoning changes. And now I don't understand what's happening when it seems like you're trying to stop that progress. So please --
I'm sorry. Your time has been up. I'm giving you latitude, please summarize.
All right. Please do not support the use of public funds for wealthy sports teams stadiums, especially at the most expensive site, 12th and Vine Street.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Hi. My name is Tony DeSantis. First off, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'd also like to thank you, Mrs. Verna, for responding to my letter. Thank you. I speak today as a Pennsylvania resident and as a taxpayer. Normally, as a Bucks 304 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 County resident, I'd consider it inappropriate for me to tell the City of Philadelphia how to spend its money, but since the Governor has committed $85 million for stadium construction in Philadelphia, I suppose I have a stake in this now. I am troubled by the 12th and Vine preliminary choice because it's troubling enough to consider spending almost a half a billion dollars to construct two entertainment complexes, which is essentially what a sports complex is. I'm also troubled by the possibility that the cost of condemnation, relocation, and demolition on the assorted parcels could approach $200 million. Furthermore, I do not agree that the City of Philadelphia would actually benefit from a downtown ballpark. I would ask the Committee of the Whole to look at the stadium issue from a different perspective, which is, should we even consider building a ballpark in Center City? I oppose the placement of a ballpark in Center City for the following reasons: First, a ballpark would be used only 81 305 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 days a year. The rest of the time it would be empty. Second, the placement of a ballpark downtown, as presently conceived, would require the closing of 12th Street, further disrupting the normal traffic flow. Finally, the substantial infrastructure improvements soley to accommodate stadium access and parking would be required. I suggest it would be better for the City to consider the placement in Center City of a year-round sporting facility, a facility that would accommodate no more than 20,000 people, require neither the amount of land or substantial infrastructure of a ballpark, and possibly on property that the City already owns. While everyone's focusing on the replacement of Veterans Stadium, there is another sports facility in Philadelphia older than the Vet, that also happens to be one of the ugliest sports' arenas ever built, and it's located in a prime location for a ballpark. It's at the southwest corner of Broad and Pattison, between the Vet and the First Union Center. Yes, the 306 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Spectrum. In an era of single-sport arenas, it is inevitable that the NBA and NHL will demand and get for their teams their own arenas. The process of stadium relocation will be repeated five to ten years from now, when the Spectrum is due for replacement and the when Sixers and Flyers demand their own arenas. I suggest get ahead of the curve on this. I would propose that the City of Philadelphia replace the Spectrum, not the Vet, with a facility downtown. The Phillies can then take the Spectrum site and build their stadium there. This would accomplish a couple of objectives: First, it would reduce the impact of stadium attendance on the neighborhoods in South Philadelphia. It would also reduce the ancillary costs to the City and enhance Center City. If the cost of building the First Union Center was $80 million, even allowing for some inflation, that's still 100 million. For the rest of the parking lot, with a quid pro quo, it would probably cost you 120 million. You're still 85 307 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 million ahead if you do that. Above and beyond that, the Flyers, Sixers, and the Phillies would benefit in the following ways: The Phillies would get what they want, the Sixers would have a place to call their own, and the Flyers and the Phantoms could have their own ice surface. It's easier to maintain one ice rink than two ice rinks. It's easier to maintain one floor than two. Now, I realize that this all depends upon what the final cost for the relocation and demolition and acquisition are, but I'm saying that if it's getting to cost that much to acquire the land, you might as well consider building another arena.
Of course, all this raises other questions, like why should the City and State invest $600 million, $50 million in the construction and entertainment venues when some high schools don't even have playing fields? )
Excuse me, Mr. DiSantis, your time really has run out. Please start to summarize. 308 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Thank you.
Oh, okay. What I'm saying is that I hope that this current administration and this Council is not rushed into a decision. Remember, these teams cannot leave until 2011. We don't need to build them anything by 2003, despite what they tell you. If it's not a good deal for us, don't go for it. That's it.
The next three names are Jack Trinsey, Linda Plummer, and Jack Butler. (Witness comes forward.)
Good evening. My name is Jack Butler, and I want to thank Ms. Verna and City Council for holding these hearings. I think they've shown that the population in Philadelphia 309 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 is becoming very, very much involved, politically involved, and is looking out for the best, you know, that -- for the future of Philadelphia. I'm really here speaking for myself, but I would like to think that I represent all concerned citizens of Philadelphia who love this city. I've lived here all my life, and I was -- I went to the public schools of the City and I taught in the public schools of Philadelphia. There is no doubt that there is certainly some economic benefit to having any kind of entertainment venue, but I think we need to stop focusing on the economic benefit of a stadium and look to the economic damage that a failed school system has caused our city to suffer. For years and years, you know, we've had people who have been jobless, homeless, on welfare. You can't even begin to imagine the social costs of that. I would like to think that this administration, unfortunately, unlike many previous administrations, really has its priorities in place. I think that we have lived through many administrations where the priorities 310 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 have been misplaced. Please, I urge you to have your priorities well-placed. I am opposed to spending any public money whatsoever on a sports stadium. (Applause.)
Or on a new stadium. If any of the major-league teams want a new stadium badly enough, they can raise the money themselves, as has been shown in other cities. I feel that if any public money is to be spent at all, it would be to -- if it could be done, renovate Vets Stadium. Here's a stadium that's not even 30 years old. It could be renovated and made better, suitable for both baseball and football, since it would be used only a fraction of the year. The parking is already there. We could think about developing -- you know, if we think of restaurants and clubs, we could develop that in that area. If money is to be spent by the teams for a stadium, a new stadium, I strongly oppose the Chinatown site. It does not belong there, and I don't have I don't think I have to belabor the points anymore. I think you, as members of City 311 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Council, are intelligent enough to be aware of those reasons that it does not belong there. If a new stadium will be built, I strongly favor either the Schmidts Brewery site or the site at the Delaware River and Spring Garden. It would be a beautiful site for a ballpark, a very exciting site, accessible to public transportation, to highway transportation, and that is where I think a new stadium should go, if one is to be built at all. Our mayor seems to be concerned so much about having a stadium in Center City because it would be within walking distance. I don't know of many people -- and I know I'm included -- who would walk from 11th and Vine to Rittenhouse Square or to many of the venues on the Avenue of the Arts. We would certainly feel, Well, to promote that, we would want to provide shuttle transportation of some kind, if we want to get people into Center City. If you're going to do that, then you might as well -- if you can get the Phillies to build a ballpark, build it at the riverfront, at the Schmidts Brewery site, and provide shuttle transportation from there. You'd 312 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 have to anyway. We have a great Phlash bus service, which, I'm sure, could be better utilized. Let's go for that. Anyway, thank you very much for your time and attention. (Applause.)
I strongly urge City Council to please listen to the people of Philadelphia and not spend any of our tax money on stadiums. Spend it where it belongs -- on schools.
Good evening. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record.
Jack Trinsey, Council President and Councilmembers. May I put these two exhibits up, because I'm going to leave them here. I don't need an easel. They could just be put on either side there.
Council President, I sit before you with 50 years of construction experience and 40 years as a developer. I have the third proposal for an alternate stadium. And as you can see, I'm proposing to put both stadiums together in, I think, a unique idea, whereby there would be -- and avoid a motel -- or I sent around to Council copies of that last week, and I have submitted a written proposal today. What I'm proposing is that this be built in West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. And the reason for that is that all of the highways converge at West Conshohocken. If you were to take a look at the Delaware Valley Planning Commission maps, they show a dot for every thousand in population. The center of this whole -- we talked about a 7 million people regional area. The dot is not really in City Hall, it's in West Conshohocken. And a lady that I told that I was going to propose the stadiums to go into West Conshohocken, she said, Oh, boy, that would be wonderful. I would take my children there to that stadium. 314 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 So some of the things that are proposed are to meet your budget proposals nowhere near what it costs. There -- the most important ingredient in building your stadium, as a construction man, I can tell you, is your concrete. And if those concrete trucks sit in traffic for a while, they have to be rejected. I watched the Denenhower (ph.) Bridge, where Buckley and Company had to take down a whole pier because it wasn't measured right, 'cause concrete goes stale. I watched the Norristown 202 bridge tear up materials, and they reject them because the State inspectors -- there's something unique about concrete. If it stands too long in a truck, it's rejected, because they don't want the concrete to come down and kill people and so forth. So there's a very strict thing, and I'm sure that that's not taken into consideration with a lot of those costs. So that could be staggering because staggering because of the traffic. But the most important thing is, I have asked the Montgomery County Commissioners to their office to allow me to speak to them on the 29th of this month to support the -- first of all, support 315 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 the Chinese, Chinatown situation. I've been going there since I was a boy. And, I tell you, they're the sweetest people. They talked about it earlier today. A young lady got up and said they're the sweetest people -- they are. They're the sweetest, gentlest, kindest people. They make you feel good -- besides having spectacular food, but they're so gentle and kind and try to be helpful. So I was asked by them if I would come and propose these ideas 'cause I've only been in this now two weeks. I was doing other things, but I put my head in this two weeks ago. What desperately is needed is for somebody for me to talk to. I went to the Mayor's Office, I went to the Phillies, and went to the Eagles' office. They were very kind and gave me a pat on the back and said, Listen, we can't do nothing until we hear from the Mayor.
What would the cost of the stadiums at this location be?
I would say that from my estimate -- for instance, the parking garage, I heard testimony, at $20,000 a car. I've got a first-class contractor, a union contractor say 316 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 that those garages up on the site would cost $10,000 a car. I believe that that would be in your original budget of $3 million or so for the two stadiums, or $3.5 million, but it needs work, it needs work. You can't expect a 73-year-old guy to stay in here and tell you what this is going to cost. I've only been in it now ten days or two weeks. If I had some cooperation from Council, that I could talk to people, or they would give me plans, or that I was allowed to go to the Eagles and to the Phillies, I would be able to come up with those costs. I would donate my time. I'm not asking for any money. In fact, I'm starting to get funded. My children gave me on Father's Day $100. Next Tuesday, I'm going to Chinatown, at 12th and Market, with cello, playing the cello, with a tin cup. Maybe I need a bucket, but I'm going there with a cup. So I'm willing to help. The most important thing you need now is, if not Chinatown, where? Because I'm very experienced in the court, and the court is going to say to the Chinatown people, All right, we agree with you, we're not going to build that in 317 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Chinatown. But where are you going to put it? And somebody has to have the answers for that. And I'm saying I heard two other proposals tonight -- the Schmidts and the 30th Street Station. So would you allow a third horse in the race because you could share in the profits there. It's all wide open. You could get money from --
It is not in the Philadelphia area, but that doesn't stop -- that doesn't stop your cooperation. It's just minutes away from the Philadelphia area, but a -- a -- there's no question that the State subsidy would be transferrable there if the City agreed to it, and I'm going to go see the Montgomery County Commissioners. What we're trying to do is, can't we all get along together? This is a beautiful spot, which has all the major transportation arteries that takes care of it -- public transportation, the Blue Route, everything is there. Both stadiums could handle it, and with it tying the 318 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 two stadiums together, nobody's tried that before, and I feel very confident that something could be worked out. The City would own a part of it, could own all of it, and you could share in it, in the profits. And there's going to be other office buildings to go up there. I've brought these two -- these are my last two exhibits to show you that there are buildings going up in there, and there's enough property around there for the buildings. And here's another map I did of the -- I scribbled this map myself to show you the area of roadways. Now, there's one thing more that I want to take as a developer. You're sitting on one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in America with the area around South Philadelphia where all of the land is concerned. Now, I'm not an expert in that --
The stadium lands and all 319 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 that ground right down to the Delaware River, there's an issue of dredging five more feet from the Delaware River so the big ships can come in here for docking, which is a major, major function in this world for Philadelphia because of the world trade that is going through now. And that area -- I worked seven years with the DEP, and I got an approval. I worked three-quarters of a mile of riverfront in the past seven years, and I got approval from the DEP. The thing that's in the bottom of the Delaware River should be tested on a small basis to see if it's contaminated, whatever it is. And it may be able to be spread on those flat lands that you have down there and the sun would kill that maybe, because you see on that picture, there are beautiful industrial parks up in King of Prussia, and you could make that place down there a gold mine because all the ships could come into Philadelphia at that area, you could have industrial buildings go up there. You're sitting on really one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the whole world from the stadium down there, all the way 320 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 down to the river, and all of that flat ground down there, it could be made into one of the most beautiful industrial parks. So what I'm saying -- in three minutes, I can't give it all to you.
Well, I'm Irish, you know, I can't stop talking. But if the Council would -- I left my messages, and I left with Mr. Kearney in Councilman Cohen's my phone number. If we could get together, I mean, you should have a good look at it. And that's why I'm here tonight.
Thank you for your patience and thank you for coming in to testify. (Applause.)
Is Delores Cortizas here? Timothy Hannah, Dr. Sheri Grasmuck, Roseanne Adams, Jean Pan, Ron Hankin. (Applause.) (Witnesses come forward.) 321 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
Ron, you too have been extremely patient. Thank you.
Thank you. And you have, as well. You have done very well for us.
My name is Ron Hankin. And I live in a historically certified building at 13th and Callowhill. The building is known as "the Beaux Arts Lofts." I am concerned that the expenditure of funds of more than $200 million in excess of the amount needed to build a stadium in other locations is a financial mistake, as well as a moral lapse. Mayor Street says that the 13th to 11th Street location is obviously the best location. By that same theory, one might say a stadium that costs such an excessive amount is obviously the wrong choice. There are quality-of-life issues that are difficult to put a dollar amount on. Perhaps putting a miniature golf course on the lawns of Independence Hall would be a financial plus for the City, but what a price to pay. 322 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 (Applause.).
There is also the potential costs that would arise due to the loss of revenues, should additional taxes be placed on rental cars and hotel rooms. This approach is in direct contradiction to enterprise zones, where tax credits are given to generate business. Taxes and more taxes may be too much. This project has the potential of becoming a dinosaur of a stadium with destructive economic and social results. The Chestnut Street return to a normal use may be a warning to all of us of the potential dangers that may occur as a result of planning missteps. Philadelphia is not a walking city. The 40,000 abandoned cars were not left there by pedestrians. The Mayor would have you believe that this is a blighted area. And, indeed, one may find some properties in need of renovation. However, there is a surge of investment and growth in and around this site. One must ask the question, If this is a blighted area, why then is the most expensive location? (Applause.) 323 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
When I spoke to my attorney concerning the potential condemnation and reimbursement costs, he told me that there was no 5 case law established on the destruction of a condominium complex. The loss of revenues from these properties and the potential future development must be calculated into the cost of this location, as well as a loss of prestige to a city that turns against some, and in so doing, perhaps all of its taxpaying citizens. In Los Alamos, government officials started fires that resulted in the destruction of 250 homes. With all due respect to Councilman DiCicco, Councilman DiCicco has started, with Mayor Street, a chain of events that may result in the destruction of our homes. There is a difference between a tragedy in New Mexico and that which is about to happen in Philadelphia. The victims in Los Alamos will get their insurance money and their government money, and they will return to rebuild their homes. If you take our homes, you will also be taking our history, as we will have no place to return. And we turn to you, you who have the 324 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 power to save our homes and Philadelphia from this 13th Street stadium, an unlucky stadium -- (Applause.)
An unlucky stadium that brings it costly social and economic consequences. Thank you. (Applause.)
The next three names are Johansen Liong, Joe Morgan, and Linda Chung..
While they're approaching the witness table, a number of people were here and did have to leave. However, they did leave copies of their testimony, which will be circulated to the Members of Council, and a copy will be given to the stenographer, and the testimony will be transcribed in full.
Good evening. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Dom Giordano, talk show 325 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 host at 1210 AM radio in Philadelphia, WPHT. (Applause.)
Thank you. till in the afternoon. It's a great honor to see -- a pleasure to see so many people still here and to see the diligence particularly I know that Councilman Cohen is involved with in these hearings today and President Verna. I came down here, didn't go home an change, at the behest of Shoshana Bricklin, to kind of make a statement in my sweat and filth, coming from a baseball game at Mt. Airy Little League, where we won tonight in quite a game, to make the statement that this is where we believe sports in the City should be. (Applause.)
Where our kids, my kids and, as you know, my you father in South Philadelphia, with some resources from the City, have been able to raise generations of children. Now, on my radio show both at WWDB and WPHT, I've had on the experts that Councilman Cohen brought in earlier today, and I have found 326 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 these men to be brilliant in their assessment -- maybe because agree with me -- that without a doubt, the stadiums -- or "stadii," as I call them -- are not about economic development. And I would tell everyone here assembled, I have not seen, in the years I've been doing talk radio 8 in Philadelphia, an issue where we begged to get 9 someone to call in that would be pro-stadium to 10 fund this, and this is way before what we started 11 to hear in the last few days and the testimony 12 today. It was running literally 100 to 1. Now, I am not an expert in stadiums, stadium economic development, and all of that, but I've kind of educated myself and I have a big mouth so I've talked about it on the air, and after listening to the experts, after hearing public opinion on this, I would tell you point-blank that members of Council are running a real risk if they go forward with some of the plans that we've heard discussed at 12th and Vine. (Applause.)
What I do think I have expertise in is, what is the public saying or 327 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 doing at any one point, because we have phone lines at the radio station, e-mail, faxes, and all the rest of it, and people call in that disagree on just about anything. They don't call in and disagree on the stadium. About the best that I hear is, we hear people saying, we want to do the right thing by the Phillies and Eagles, we want to be fair to them, but we do not -- we do not want to sign a blank check. And I will tell you this. I have a lawsuit that still is in the State Supreme Court that will come down in September that may make your job easier. We've got two jobs at the Superior Court level to agree that the State funding of the stadii is unconstitutional. (Applause.)
Yes. The lawsuit is stating that the State can make a grant to of money to Jeffrey Lurie, Bill Giles, and the people up in the Pittsburgh, but they cannot give them a 328 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 loan. A loan is unconstitutional. Judge Doris Smith called it "a groan" in the papers. That's basically what they've come up with. And she also, Judge Doris Smith, I believe, about the highest-ranking African-American judge, one of the highest in the state, that this is outrageous that we are paying millionaire ball players, we're debating this, we're holding up hearings on this while we have so many other crying needs. (Applause.)
The issue -- Council President and Mr. Cohen, I'd be happy to provide documents on this -- basically in a nutshell says, what our legislature did was, they superceded the law, they even said they had the power to make it up. And they did this in the middle of the night. So I believe that that is one area that City Council ought to take a look at as we get into these discussions and the intensity that is on you to make a just decision. And this will only increase because several state legislators told me the pressure was more unrelenting than any issue they've ever been involved in. 329 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 And with that, I'd like to not take any more time because I know there are plenty of people here tonight. I am very heartened and will report back tomorrow that this is a great moment in Philadelphia, whatever happens, that people are out here at o'clock on a summer night with their 8 kids. You're taking the time to listen to people 9 like me coming in filthy from the ball field to tell you what I think and what the public thinks about this. And for that, I'm very, very happy. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much for coming in and thank you for your testimony. Councilman Cohen?
I hope you keep up your good work in attempting to listen to Philadelphia, have them call in, and voice their opinions. It's extremely important that this be a dialogue amongst all Philadelphians.
Well, I would send one warning. I am very, very conservative. When David L. Cohen, Angel Ortiz, and Dom Giordano are on the same side of an issue, there's going to be 330 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 hell to be paid if you go against that. (Laughter.) (Applause.)
Michael Tran, Randy Kester, John Morley. (Witness comes forward.).
Good evening, Mr. Morley, how are you? Would you please -- would you be brief, please.
I will. Thank you. And thank you, Councilman Cohen, for prompting the resolution to provide this hearing. My name's John H. Morley, Jr., M-O-R-L-E-Y. I live in South Philadelphia. I oppose the use of taxpayer money being used to construct sports stadiums. On May 15, 2000, I attended the EPOP meeting at Kensington Church. At this meeting, a high school senior told Mayor Street that he is taking drafting classes, yet has never used a computer in school. If this is true, the School District of Philadelphia is failing to educate, and this Council should focus its energy on the School District, not a socialistic handout to 331 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 sports franchises. (Applause.)
I took drafting classes in school, in high school, and was able to get a job after graduating from high school. But in 2000, if a high school student who wants to draw can't use CAD, he will not get a job. In 1996, Standard & Poors did an industry study and determined that Americans spend only 1 percent of the money set aside for entertainment for a sporting event ticket. I have conducted a Web site poll and an oral poll of my community and found that 98 percent of the people who took part in my polls opposed the use of taxpayer money being used to construct stadiums. (Applause.)
In addition to the pro baseball stadium in California being built privately, a pro football stadium was built privately in Maryland and Florida. Groups have formed throughout the country in opposition to stadium taxes: Pittsburgh Against Stadiums Subsidies (PASS), 332 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Citizens Opposed to Stadium Taxes (COST), Voters Against Stadium Taxes (VAST), and Grassroots Against Government-Mandated Entertainment (GAGME). This issue is an opportunity for Council. This issue is an opportunity for Council to change the population decline. It would be headline news throughout the country if this Council has the courage to prevent Philadelphia tax money from being used to construct stadiums and to return the $170 million of Pennsylvania taxpayer money committed by Harrisburg. Many Philadelphia citizens considering leaving would regain their faith and trust in local government. Those fiscally conservative people in other parts of country would be encouraged to move here. That's the end of my statement. Thank you. (Applause.)
Marc DeBeary, Andrew Terhune, Todd Schwartz. (Witness comes forward.)
The wave from next speaker represents the fact that we know him 333 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 well. His father was Councilman Herb DeBeary. We're very glad to see you.
I appreciate it, Councilman Cohen. First it's good for me to just say that I'm very happy to see some hard-working Councilpersons. It makes me start to believe that when I cast my vote, I voted for individuals that actually work, and so I'm glad to see that. I have a brief statement here today. What has brought me here -- I'm Marc DeBeary, for the record. And what has brought me here is that I'm a resident of the City of Philadelphia and I've been so for the last years or so. And 15 when I first heard about the City entertaining the 16 idea of constructing stadiums for these athletic 17 teams, I became very appalled, very appalled, to a 18 point where I had to write my Councilperson, and I 19 more or less took it out on her. I think that was 20 unfair. I think that this hearing is really appropriate because it allows me to bring forth what I think the situation is and what this City Council has to deal with. About eight and a half years ago, this 334 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Council had a serious fiscal problem, a serious fiscal problem, where a lot of these individuals who are working in City Council had to make some hard decisions, some very hard decisions. A lot of people had to pay the price for that. I, living in East Germantown, we had to pay the price there. We have a recreation center there that is deplorable, deplorable. When I say "deplorable," deplorable. For six years, that recreation center has been going under an enormous amount of conversations about how it was going to get fixed how and it was going to get repaired. Just recently, I hear that they're going to start the construction. To give you another example of why I became very appalled. I have a swimming pool at the Awbury Recreation Center that has a tree literally growing off the sidewalks of it, a tree, literally off the sidewalks, it's growing. I became upset about that. So that's why I wrote the letter to my Councilperson, and she's doing what she can. But I want this Council to realize that whatever decision you make is going to have an 335 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 impact on all of us. Soon, if not yet now, and you have some serious union contract renegotiations going on. Everyone has a claim to the surplus which exists in the City Treasury, everybody has a claim. Even I have a claim to it. So what I suggest is that we don't use a nickel for the stadiums unless -- the key word is "unless," because you have to make a decision here. The City has to find ways to find more sources of revenues. We have a burden of problems. As I did my research on this issue, every city throughout the country has gone through these kind of hearing processes and have the same issues. Schools aren't working, schools need funding, recreation centers are falling apart. The same issues we have, other cities have them. So I say here today to City Council, entertain the idea, but don't spend a nickel unless the City of Philadelphia reaps the benefits, meaning the community first. Nine and a half years, we didn't have this Center City. Center City has taken all of the benefits. Now it's time to concentrate on the 336 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 communities. (Applause.)
And I ask you, City Council, I'm sure you'll do it, please, please make the City of Philadelphia be first. And I appreciate your time, and please accept my written statement and make it as a part of the record. I thank you for your time. Thank you.
Todd Schwartz, Greg Pastore, Tyrone Johnson, Ann Dixon. (Witness comes forward.)
I'm Ann Dixon of West Philadelphia. I am here to tell City Council and Mayor Street to not approve the building of the stadium at 12th and Vine Streets. During the past ten years, many cities have built stadiums. So fortunately for us, we don't have the to make guesses about the result of funding such expensive endeavors. Expensive new stadiums are touted by some politicians as being 337 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 economic boons, but their costs far outweigh any gain. In his book There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos, Jim Hightower relates true-life stadium stories. Dade County, Florida, built a $53 million for basketball and hockey around 1988. The owners said there weren't enough sky boxes, so the county built a $212 million hockey stadium and a $210 million basketball stadium. Thus, local taxpayers were left owing $38 million in bonds on the old arena. Art Modell made a deal in 1995 to move the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore. Modell was promised a $20 million new stadium built by the state and leased rent-free. He received millions for moving expenses and got many other perks. Governor Glendening and the legislature took money out of the state lottery revenues, imposed a new tax, and tapped other state funds. Some legislators thought the money would be better spent on schools. Art Modell said, and I quote, "I feel for the schools, but look at the positive 338 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 of pro football on a community, the emotional investment of people at large. You can't equate that with fixing up the schools." Well, here we are in Philadelphia, facing the same issues. People of Chinatown have made it clear that they will not benefit economically or in any other way by the stadiums. And our schools, of course, are in dire straits. We can't afford to build at 12th and Vine, the most expensive of the proposed sites. Mayor Street and City Council can listen to reason and decide not to build at 12th and Vine. Thus, the Mayor will be known as "the mayor who helped neighborhoods." (Applause.)
Karen Bygott, Elvin Pedilla, Calvin Sun? Is Calvin Sun here? (No response.)
Jessie Gardner will be next. Good evening, Mr. Lee.
Good evening, Council 339 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 President. I want to thank you again and other members of Council for being patient and for allowing everyone here to speak. I've prepared letters for everybody. I'll try to keep my comments as succinct as possible. My name is Sidney Lee. I am here as a lifelong resident of Chinatown. I reside with my family on the 200 block of north Clifton Street, which is one block south of the proposed site of the stadium at 11th and Vine. I'm opposed to the stadium for two reasons: One, cost; and, secondly, location. Two reasons, while separate, do enhance one another in order to arrive at the same conclusion, that the site chosen at 11th and Vine is a great mistake. Firstly cost. Initial cost, as outlined by the Stadium Committee, was $545 million. Yet, an analysis initiated by State Senator Fumo and directed by State Senate budget expert Randy Albright, the final cost will be $125 million more, or $670 million. Baseball season consists of about 80 games. 3 million. To date, 340 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 these are the only real figures about the stadium costs. And if accurate, this stadium will be the most expensive stadium built in the country. Secondly, location. There have been mentions in the media pertaining to the stadium site and its location individuals involved in selecting the site have referred to it as the Vine Street and 12th and Vine sites as opposed to the Chinatown site. As been said, it's adjacent to Chinatown and not actually within Chinatown. Well, as someone who lives around the corner from that site, I can assure you that area is indeed a part of Chinatown. The site should be referred to as such, or perhaps as the 11th and Vine site, since that is where the eastern boundary of the stadium will begin. The site in Chinatown has the potential to expand several times its present size, but it would be impossible if the stadium went up. The only direction left for the community to grow is northward, exactly where the site in question is. There can be parallels drawn between the stadium and the Convention Center. The Convention Center was a civic project. It 341 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 stretches from 11th to 13th Streets. The Convention Center Committee claimed that it would benefit the surrounding community. Blocks of houses and businesses were razed to create this giant edifice, the great white elephant. There were no jobs created for the community, and I personally have yet to notice how this center benefitted Chinatown in any way whatsoever. The Mayor's statement that Chinatown would benefit financially (unintelligible) the Convention Center essentially reduces it to nothing more than a collection of restaurants. " One block east of 11th and Vine Street is Holy Redeemer. It's a combination of church and school that has been in existence for close to 60 years. The importance of this institution cannot be understated. It is the center of Chinatown. The surrounding community educates their children there, attend Catholic mass, and have weddings and funerals. Close proximity of the stadium to Holy Redeemer is appalling. The (unintelligible) created by a ballpark is not in 342 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 any way conducive to teaching children or a house of worship, as would any type of entertainment complex. Utter disregard for the school children and the church displayed in choosing the 11th and Vine site has yet to be addressed by the Stadium Committee. It's almost as if Holy Redeemer failed to register in the grand stadium equation. Five weeks ago, I attended a funeral of a close family friend whose service. Whose service was held at Holy Redeemer. The funeral procession started around noon. As we drove along Vine Street past the stadium site, I was forced to visualize what our procession would be like if we were to contend with cars jamming up the expressway on game day.
The dead would have to wait a little longer to arrive at their final resting place because of a traffic tie-up or accident. I feel that I am being forced to justify my existence since I refuse to accept the stadium with open arms. There are not mathematical equations that can convince me as a voter that taking away my tax dollars to fund a 343 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 stadium will help me or should be a top priority. I should be able, as a resident, to hear the justification given to spending public money on stadium which only benefits private industry. Yet I am here presenting my thoughts on the matter while the Stadium Committee believes that it will benefit the City as a whole. This belief has convinced our mayor that it is the route to go. The schools are falling apart, the gas utility is in utter disarray, we have Local 33 going on strike due to insufficient funds, the City will begin to stink in more ways than one. I respect our mayor's stubbornness on issue, and in turn, he should respect the community's stubbornness by refusing to bend over for the City's wishes. This feels like another empty promise and (unintelligible). This stadium will be the straw that broke the camel's back. Now that this camel's back is broken, corrective surgery will not be an option. The back will remain broken. The only option left would be to put the camel out of its misery. Thank you.
Thank you 344 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 very much, Mr. Lee. (Applause.).
Mitch Deighan, Jessie Gardner, and Lou Innocenzi, please approach the witness table. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Louis J. Innocenzi, and I'm honored to speak for a civic action group, the Simon Agape Club. Several of our distinguished members who could probably present this better than I are here: Jesus Garsett (ph.), who was a man very involved with anti-violence; Ron Greenwald, who's a civil activist, very interested in Philadelphia; and, of course, Richard Meston (ph.), who is distinguished member of our group. I'll be brief. I want to thank you, honorable and esteemed members of Council for allowing us to speak and to put the time in here. 345 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Neighborhood development is the deeper issue we need to debate over stadiums. Is it not about time to distribute City funds to all sections of the City now that the major projects of Center City restoration have been completed? Did not past Mayor Rendell say that he wanted to develop the rundown neighborhoods of the City but was unable to get them? And has not Mayor Street promised to try to obtain $250 million to develop the neighborhoods? Would it not be a good idea to provide tour buses to the visiting delegates from the National Convention to see with their own eyes the squalor and rubble in vast areas of our great city, to convince them, and maybe our ourselves, that we cannot abandon vast areas of our city and our country and large numbers of American citizens, without dire consequences to our great country? Looking deeper, does not the abandonment and neglect of our city's neighborhoods constitute a violation of human rights, even though there has been some success in achieving civil rights? What are the fundamental human rights? 346 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 They are forever enshrined, of course -- not to give you a lesson in kindergarten democracy, but they are forever enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well as many laws and court decisions throughout our great history. But they must be implemented in each generation with great vigilance and struggle. The fundamental human rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But in order to bring these ideals into reality, economic and racial justice must be achieved. All people have a right to a life that provides the basic necessities such as food clothing, shelter, education, health care, a safe environment, and economic security. You might say this is impossible. But if you think that, then the America of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, John Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King, and every American who has and is making a contribution to this, our great experiment in human dignity and free government, then it is not possible. To achieve these inalienable rights, we all have to do our part, as we are attempting to 347 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 do in this hearing today. In economic life, the free market has a clear advantage, but government has the important responsibility to keep it fair, and this duty cannot be left to voluntary groups which are also vital to the economy. The City government as well as the State and federal governments, have a moral obligation to help assure opportunity for the people, meet basic human needs, and pursue just in economic life.
I don't have extra copies. I will make them available, but I won't read the last page, not to belabor --
If you will, sir, you can conclude. And if you'll give someone a copy of your testimony --
We'll make the copies for you. 348 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
I will send it to you and the Council. The sum up, there's a great deal of human rights being violated in our city and in our country, and there's a great deal of economic injustice, and there's a great deal of the remnants, I believe, of racism. And I hope that we can all begin to go deeper yet, that some of the causes and roots of the violence in our society are because of these injustices. And we will be hoping that all of you -- you have such a tough job. We wish you well, you have our support. Thank you for allowing us to participate. And that's it.
Thank you. Thank you for your patience. (Applause.)
Ken Heard, Marilyn Kirsch, Rebecca Ang. (Witnesses come forward.)
I'm Marilyn Kirsch and I'm in your district. 349 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
Over the past few months, my husband has been recruiting people for six new positions opening up at Temple University. Of the many candidates interested in the position, not one has chosen to look for housing within the Philadelphia City limits. The one and only reason that they do not want to live here is the poor quality of the public schools. Not one candidate has expressed any interest whatsoever in the fact that Philadelphia has major sports teams, not one candidate has asked about the condition of our stadiums, or where the teams play. (Applause.)
One candidate from Tampa did tell us that in Tampa, the publicly funded stadium has been a fiscal disaster and the city is still in debt because of it. If these people were to move to Philadelphia instead of the suburbs, not only would they be paying more taxes here, but they would be shopping and making use of City businesses, and in many over ways, spending money 350 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 in the City, thereby adding to the common wealth. If the Mayor and the City Council made the public schools of Philadelphia their priority and spent our limited resources on the schools for our children -- and I have no children, so I'm not doing this selfishly -- who are our future, then Philadelphia would truly experience the economic boom that's so falsely promised by this short- sighted idea of a publicly funded stadium for privately owned wealth.
You've been extremely patient and I want to thank you for your testimony. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
Gary Lee, Richard Pan, Lula Bell Hardman, Amy Hom-Burch, Tina Hom, Mae Laster, Yay Yee Law, Brendan Kelly, Albert Seawright. And that's it.
Is there anyone else who would like to testify? UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.
All right, one at a time. The woman here in the first row with the glasses. 351 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 (Witnesses come forward.)
Good evening. I'm sorry if your name wasn't called. There are different lists going, so your name may have been on one of the lists.
I'm sorry. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
My name is Stephen Zwick. I'm a architect in Center City. I sit on the Urban Affairs Committee at the AIA, which is the American Institute of Architects. In prior positions, in earlier firms, I've designed most of the United Artists theaters in this area, including the original design of Riverview and the one up in Manayunk. I also designed the Maui Club and a number of other entertainment venues. One of my current clients is Electric Factory concerts. I design all of their facilities and including what was going to be the expansion of their office at 1231 and 1233 Vine Street. Because of my relationship with the Electric Factory and my design work in that area, 352 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 I have visited that area frequently, traveling through a number of the little back streets in a search for free parking, which, in essence, gives me a little bit of familiarity with the specific site. But before I get into that, I wanted to look at quite real quickly some of the issue that is were raised by some of the earlier witnesses. In regards to financing, I think there were some particular good issues raised per the notion of the City reaping some of the rewards if the stadium and the team is sold, therefore realizing some of the capital gains. In terms of economic impact, I think the economist who made his presentation, he presents some (unintelligible) in such a way that he uses whatever parameters support his hypothesis. I think DiCicco made some good counter-arguments in terms of the slice of the leisure dollar, and I think some of his arguments were hypothetical. And as he said himself, you have to look at each stadium situationally. I grew up in Chicago, north of Chicago, and I grew up going to Wrigley Field, meaning that 353 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 I enjoyed going to baseball, until I got to Philly. I've been to the Vet once and I will never go back. In terms of -- therefore, in terms of the leisure dollar, with 80 percent of the people coming currently into the City for games in South Philadelphia, some of those same people, if they stayed after work, ate downtown, and went to a ball game, would not be taking their dollars back to South Jersey, back out to the Main Line or other communities, and would still continue to spend those leisure dollars here, rather than at bowling alleys outside the City. I don't know where there's a bowling alley in Center City, to be honest with you. In terms of the first witness who spoke about the limited uses of garages, with the expansion of the Convention Center garage space will serve a daytime function for that expanding Convention Center and some of the hotel uses. And the way that you would be able to price parking -- if you priced parking in such a fashion -- for example, if you made with your ticket as validation at the 15th and Vine Street location, 354 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 you can intercept traffic and charge a cheaper rate, which could, in turn -- the way in which garages operate, it could mitigate the traffic impact upon the area. And, also, in regards to some of the issues in terms of additional infrastructure costs, if that area is to be developed, the trellises have to come down irrespective of whatever use is going to be there. The trestle of tunnels, particularly the one on Carlton Street right now is used as a dump. It's an unsafe condition, as are the conditions where it transforms into a metal structure that creates strange configurations. Without removing those, development in that region is severely limited. So in some ways, placement of a stadium at that location facilitates development rather than prevents development or inhibits development. Now, Philadelphia has one notorious distinction, in that according to several studies, that it leads the nation in abandoned properties. Nearly 27,000 abandoned properties and 30,000 vacant lots. If you drive through that area along Callowhill, you'll find a fair number of those 355 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 properties up in that region.
Using a park as a catalyst could, with the relocation and changes done to the infrastructure, allow for development into the adjacent area, thus consolidating and eliminating some of those abandoned properties. Now, in terms of what's the rage in architectural theory, there's a theory called "new urbanism," where you're trying to create a 24-hour city, allowing for a lot of different usages and opportunities and different venues, where other new cities are trying to recreate what the City of Philadelphia already has in terms of walking proximity to venues. And so I have -- you know, so, I mean, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of reciprocity and synergy that's created by having it in proximity to the Convention Center and the existing hotel and neighborhoods. Now, in regards to the point on Chinatown, which will be my last point, okay, 'cause I know there are still people who want to talk.
There are other people that want to be heard. You've gone 356 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 beyond your three minutes, sir.
Yeah. I looked -- you know, I go to Chinatown, I appreciate Chinatown. I was an Asian studies minor, so for whatever that's worth. (Audience jeers).
I walked through -- I drove through Chinatown at night, I walk through it during the day, I looked at how Chinatown is -- what -- how Chinatown is currently developing. Are there vacant lots, are there underutilized properties, are there buildings that can be still converted, can there be development within what is perceived to be Chinatown to infill that allows for growth without expansion or sprawl? I looked -- (Audience jeers.)
That's fine, you have the right to say what you feel. That's what these hearings are for. 357 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
There were a number of lots, I can cite a few of them, that are -- that could be developed, there are a number of buildings that could be developed for increased residencies, increased density. It's in a urban environment. The property that is a very nice expansion at Eighth Street is a quasi-suburban development. It turns its back on the streets, it's not of sufficient density. You could have looked at different (unintelligible), and it's -- you know, there are a lot of ways in which we can maximize what we have there and achieve many different goals simultaneously. And on that, I'll summarize. I previously gave you a paper. I don't know if you received it, I dropped it off at your office last week.
Thank you so much, and I'm sorry about the delay.
Thank you. (Witness comes forward and distributes Leggo building block pieces.)
My name is Elizabeth Van Schaick. And I own a condominium at 1238 Callowhill Street, the Beaux Arts Lofts. And my little demonstration here today is just to say that with this 12th and Vine proposal, John Street is planning play -- to forcibly raze and rebuild in a populated area as a Philadelphia World Leggo set. He thinks that if he just brings all the pieces, they'll all fit together. Well, he's forgotten that he's not playing with Leggo blocks; he's playing with people, livelihoods, and homes. I want to make sure that included within this rubric of cost is the cost of the literal loss of homes and live development and the faith of our neighbors in Chinatown. You'll find that these pieces don't all fit together. A city is not just a bunch of building blocks. Mayor Street still insists it works. 359 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Well, it doesn't work for me, it doesn't work for my neighbors, and it doesn't work for Philadelphia. I'm here today to make sure that you're aware of how this proposal impacts average people like me, who now find themselves literally within the demolition zone. I own a unit Beaux Arts Lofts on the corner of 13th and Callowhill Streets. I just settled on my condominium on April 15th, not knowing this corner had been considered as a stadium site, let alone that such a plan would become serious. I could easy easily have stayed in the suburb of Wayne, but I wanted to move into the City because I have friends here and because I wanted to take advantage of the attractions and the organizations that the City offers. I believe the previous administration and the current administration wanted to attract more young people and young professionals and creative people to the City. I, and most of the people in my building, chose the Beaux Arts Lofts precisely because it is a refurbished warehouse loft building in this convenient location. I 360 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 chose it because it's not an overpriced Society Hill or Old City building and because I received indications that this area would develop favorably within the next few years, possibly along the lines of a more affordable Old City or Soho. I was very excited. But what was my first experience in the City? I met my new neighbors for the first time at the unfolding of this crisis, and I was sucked into a campaign to fight the destruction of my building. This means that while this stadium escalates or resolves itself, I cannot invest in the improvements I had planned, so I can't even move in. Is the City of Philadelphia telling us that anywhere we choose, a warehouse or factory building in a less polished neighborhood, we can be bulldozed at any time for the next hot installation? In short, I object to the condemning and razing of a thriving building and the destruction of live plans for additional residential development. That is a debris pile, a storm of so-called progress I cannot accept. I certainly have no interest in staying within the 361 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 City if it means contributing any tax money to this plan. (Applause.)
I urge you to reject this proposal at your earliest opportunity so that neither the Council, nor the community, nor the Phillies, are forced to waste any more of our time and resources. We don't need to spend another four months debating the merit of this plan. We in the Callowhill Street area and Chinatown depend on you not to let this succeed as a one-man or one-special-interest crusade. The country is watching us, and we are not looking like a place that is thinking. That doesn't work for our city. We need to look seriously at other alternatives, such as Liberty Yards and other places -- and fast. If Philadelphia does not get back to thinking of its neighborhoods, if we dot not remember baseball as a neighborhood tradition and look for a plan for a stadium that fits in a neighborhood, we're going to look foolish. Now let's take our money and our energy and choose the right pieces and build something that makes sense. 362 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Thank you very much for the opportunity.
There anyone wishing to testify can approach the witness table, please. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good evening. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good evening. I'm Pamela Bierce, B-I-E-R-C-E. Councilpeople, Anna Verna, David Cohen, Jannie Blackwell, Angel Ortiz, Stan Shapiro, Tim Kearney, Dom Giordano, Frank DiCicco, two clerks, and your name, who I don't know, I super appreciate that you all have made the commitment to be here tonight. I question, where in the world are the rest of the Councilmembers and our mayor who is interested in exploring this plan? (Applause.)
As a resident of Park 363 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Town, over at 22nd Street and the Parkway, I speak for me, although I represent many over there. I oppose the stadium funding. Like the people of Germantown, I do not want two stadiums. This would undo the Chinese community that has worked so hard to become who they are. If the stadium were to be built in the middle of a predominantly African-American community, such as 52nd and Market or Broad and Erie, I think the response would be the same. We already have two stadiums in South Philadelphia that the City refuses to maintain or repair. Are we going to build new stadiums that will also be neglected? As a taxpayer, I get no 16 benefit. Entry fees are prohibitive, food concessions are exorbitant. I refuse to spend my time around people who act like animals, with no 19 respect for players, as they throw trash all over the field. I am not going to pay for something that does not benefit me. Make all the funding come from the corporate sources, not the taxpayer. Let the companies whose foods are sold at concessions pay for the stadiums. Do not burden the taxpayer. 364 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 The teams bring lots of crime and expense that we could better use for the education of our children. It makes no sense to seek funding for new stadiums when school buildings fall apart and children have no textbooks. Without the education of children, our city will build adults with no education who idolize sports and cannot read. Let's dump the stadiums, dump the franchises. (Applause.)
Or keep the stadiums that can be fixed. Let's use the money where it is essential, in the repairs of school buildings and the provisions of textbooks for children in the School District of Philadelphia. I do definitely oppose the funding for these stadiums. Thank you very much.
I just said that I was 365 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Chinese and that I will not be silent. My name is Lai Har Cheung. That's spelled L-A-I, capital H-A-R, C-H-E-U-N-G. I am with Asian Americans United and with the rest of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania saying no more public money into private business ventures, okay? (Applause.)
I'm tired of the lies, I'm tired of being a worker and watching my family work for someone else's wealth and seeing our money go into private hands, okay? And I hope you're tired too, 'cause it's been a long time and they've been doing it on and on again. And it's just redistribution of wealth, and I am sick of it. Public money is to be used for public good, as Councilman DiCicco rightly said, public good. The way I define public good is our children, our schools, our streets, our neighborhoods, not billionaires, millionaires, and wannabe billionaires that I see trying to get our public money, you know? (Applause.) 366 RESOLUTION NO. 000325
In walking through Chinatown, I feel watched by the tourists. They look at me like I'm on exhibit or something. Look, Ooh, look at that girl, like, from Chinatown. It's, like, the most awkward thing that you could ever experience. Like, people in trolleys are just looking at you. Like, we are not a zoo; we are a city with creative, passionate people. The fact that you guys are here tonight, I mean, we're the same people, we are not different. You know, I can look different to you and stuff like that, but we are the same. We want the best for our city, okay? (Applause.)
I was watching working- class people yesterday. I went to the Ballpark Action Team Rally, and it was the saddest thing because I saw these working-class people rooting for their bosses, 'cause they have to root for them, it's their boss. And what they were saying was that -- they said their jobs were at stake and that, like, in order to protect their jobs, they needed a stadium. And then what I was really thinking 367 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 was, are you trying to protect your jobs or are you trying to protect your boss' wants? Like, I didn't really -- it just really hurt me 'cause I saw a lot of beautiful people out there looking for the same things that we are: decent jobs,, decent housing, same things. But they're -- they're -- they're making their livelihoods at stake. And when you do that to people, they turn into really, like, narrow-minded people. And what we're trying to do tonight, and I'm really glad you guys are listening, because this is what we're trying to do, we're trying to open people's minds. And I'm sick of being lied to and I hope you guys are too. And I'm sick of accepting it, okay? We're supposed to be afraid that we won't have enough for our families, we're supposed to be afraid. But when the truth -- the truth is that there's more than enough for everyone. There's more time for everyone's voices to be heard, there's more money. And the money for the stadium proves it. There's enough for all of us to have in this country and all over the world, there is enough, but there are people that want 368 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 more than their share, and they're try to take it from people who don't have it, and that is a crying shame and that is greed and that is injustice. And if we are to live in a society with sane people, we cannot let this insanity happen, okay? We can decide that Philadelphia can be a first-class city because our children, our children deserve a first-class education, and not a stadium. This is what makes a city first class -- not buildings. It's our children that makes us first class. (Applause.)
Final thing. Public money for public good now. That's it. Thank you, thank you so much.
My name is Palma Moyer, and I'm one of your constituents, and I'm the one who got the 300 signatures from South Philadelphia 369 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 opposing the stadium in Chinatown. (Applause.)
I'll make it brief and to the point. My friends are Chinatown and I do not want any of my taxpayers' money to go to oppose them or to oppress or, for that matter, no 9 minority do I want my tax money spent to oppress anyone. And I am a registered voter and a taxpayer, and I would greatly urge Council to consider and use justice and mercy when you're making your decision, and I have all the confidence that you will come up with the right choice. Thank you.
Excuse me. Please identify yourself for the record.
Excuse me. My name is Gilbert Von Rettig (ph.). 370 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 All right, I'm against the stadium in Chinatown, but I'm not against a stadium in Philly. But don't make the same mistake you made 30 years ago by making it one all-purpose stadium because those type of stadiums are obsolete. That is a big waste of money. My suggestion is to build a stadium in one of the alternative places, other than in Chinatown. I'm not from Philly, I just grew up in Veterans Stadium and Franklin Field when I was a child when my father used to take me to see the Eagles all the time. My suggestion is temporarily renovate the old Franklin Field, not the Vet, and build a new sports complex and you won't have to worry about a stadium for centuries, okay? 'Cause the Veterans Stadium is obsolete. And then, in any one of the alternative places, other than Chinatown, you can build the baseball park. And then, it will be just like -- you know, the Jets used to play at Shea Stadium, and Shea Stadium is a baseball park and now they're in East Rutherford, New Jersey, with the Giants. But their problem has been quenched. 371 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Do it the right way. Don't waste money on building an all-purpose stadium because in ten, fifteen years, you're going to have the same problem. Thank you.
Would any and all witnesses that want to testify, please approach the witness table. (Witness comes forward.)
Good evening. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
My name is Gene Miller, I'm from Philadelphia, from the Fairmount neighborhood.
I'll be very brief. I 372 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 want to thank you for conducting these hearings. I know it's a strain, you've had a full day. And I think this is, you know, a wonderful revival of City Council after eight years of being locked out. And I commend you on your chairmanship.
I think one issue has to be addressed -- that is that the debt service on this bond to finance this is going to be hanging over the City for the next ten years. And we lost 9 percent of our population since 1990, most of that being middle-class taxpayers, our revenue base, our tax base. If we go into another recession, as we saw in the early and mid-'90s, we may not be able to make debt service. We may be in a position that New York was in the '70s, when it had to cut percent of its police, fire, and trash people. 20 They were laid off. New York is lucky that it recovered. Philadelphia doesn't have the infrastructure that New York City does. If we go into a situation where we default on bonds, where we have to finance them or refinance them at a higher rate, that will be the straw that breaks 373 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 the camel's back. There are very articulate and better educated economists that have looked at this, you know, the matter of debt service and the volumes of bonds, outstanding bonds that we have. And I would urge you to appoint within Council your research staff to really look into this. I don't think Philadelphia can afford, by any standard -- Conservative, Liberal, whatever -- by strict dollar standards to take this on. If there is an effective development strategy for the City, it should be to try to develop an atmosphere where people want to live in this city. Somebody cited that they had an apartment or a condominium in the designated area, that was going to be demolished. A better development strategy, I suggest, is to try to encourage, through tax incentive financing, the construction of condominiums in that area. If you bring in 4,000 new households, what does that amount to? Oh, about 8 to $10 million in new tax revenue from that area, and you can get private investment, because that's prime investment area, that real estate right now. 374 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 I promised I'd be brief. I just want to restate that briefly I'm opposed to any public funding on principle, and I feel that Council and the Mayor's commission have to examine the fact that we can't pay debt service on this bond issue to finance these stadiums. There's no way you can cook the books to make that work. Thank you.
My name is Masami Nagaki (ph). I'm from Japan, actually. I'm not a citizen of the United States. I'm so nervous, I'm sorry. I went to public school in Japan and that gave me the courage to come here and study. I went to college in Boston, I transferred, and now I go to the academy down the street. I have a lot of local friends and I believe that a lot of schools do need money, and I feel really bad. It seems like a lot of kids having an education 375 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 problem. It just doesn't make sense. And I'm wanting to have kids eventually with this guy, but I don't want my kids to go to really, you know, bad neighborhood, bad school, you know? It's just -- I don't want my kids to have guns and stuff. It just don't make sense. And I'm sorry.
Yeah. It's been a few years that I've been here studying, but I have enough knowledge to speak English fine, and just public school gets you this much, you know, knowledge. It's really important to put money towards school, not the stadiums. It's just really, you know, not making sense. That's why I just wanted to support people who stand for the justice. Thanks.
Hello. My name is Brian Huey (ph.), and I live around 11th and Cherry, right next to the Convention Center, where it's a 376 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 big eyesore, for the most part. But I moved here two years ago with Masami from Boston, because in Boston, they used to have a rent cap and it kept rent down. For the most part, it was still really expensive, but around the time that we left, they took off the rent cap and all the rents went up in the area. We wound up paying $785 a month for a studio in downtown Boston. Granted that it was downtown city area fairly, it was expensive. My grandmother lives in Chinatown. I spoke with her and she helped us find an apartment here in Philadelphia, so I moved back here. Since I've been here, I have been pretty active in a lot of anti-fascist action groups in the area, and I can see a lot of problems with the way things have been going with the stadiums, for instance. I don't really want a stadium in my backyard. I mean, I don't think anybody here does. And I'm sure John Street wouldn't want one in his. (Applause.)
But I see, like, kids walking across the street. I work out in Malvern and I used to work down in Bristol. When I worked 377 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 down in Bristol, I used to drive down the Vine Street Expressway to get to 95, and I used to see kids in the morning crossing the street with the crossing guard. And there's always one or two people that decide they want to be a jerk and drive really fast through those intersections. And I've seen kids almost get hit. I've seen problems where people just don't pay attention to where they're driving there. And with a stadium being built and coming back in the afternoon from work and whatnot, it's going to be even more dangerous. And I just see the congestion as being a major problem. I don't really have much else to say.
Good evening please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is Alexander Devore (ph). I was born in Philadelphia and I've always lived in Philadelphia, including 30 years at Front and Lombard, and I'm in Councilman DiCicco's district, and I supported you and voted 378 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 for you in the last election. I supported John Street. I thought that John Street would have had more consideration for the community. I understand a lot of people would rather you spend money for education and neighborhoods and social services, but I also understand that John Street and many members of City Council want to build a stadium, I can understand that, but at least be fiscally responsible. John Street said during the election that he would go through the budget with a fine-tooth comb. You have to be fiscally responsible. And not only that, it's going to destroy Chinatown. I have a very strong sense of justice. I mean, you've had so much testimony. If you don't know by now that it's going to destroy Chinatown, then, you know, you -- I can't believe it. (Applause.)
The parking, the congestion. Race Street is one of the most congested streets in the City. Anyone who has 379 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 driven around Chinatown knows that. And parking. And Chinatown isn't just like a tourist -- I tell people to visit Chinatown because it's very interesting. It's an authentically Chinese community. It's not just a bunch of restaurants. It's -- it has character because it is a place where people actually live. It's a real community, and that needs to expand. What you're really saying -- it's a slap in the face to anyone who lives in Chinatown to say a baseball stadium is a greater cultural contribution to the City than Chinatown. (Applause.)
And not only that, you're saying that you don't want more people from China to come into the City. The City lost 17,000 people in the year 1998. That was a net loss of people during the best of economic times. Now, the way to stem that loss is to encourage more people to come into the community. And that is exactly what's happening right under your nose. People want to come into the community and they have to expand. So that that's their eminent domain. It's like saying they have no 380 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 right to come here. It's the same thing as Johnny Rocker, what he said, Oh, where the hell did all these people come from? But you, as Councilmembers and as City government, you would be using an extra $100 million of taxpayers' money to implement Johnny Rocker's belief system. And if you don't realize that voting for a stadium at 12th and Vine is political suicide, then you are more stupid than what Johnny Rocker said. And another thing, I mean, if you're going to build it there, hey, you know, you might as well build it right here, at Broad and Market. Tear down City Hall, put the stadium here, because the government's function is to serve the community. And if the government does not serve the community, then it might as well not exist at all. (Applause.)
Good evening. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good evening, Madam Chairman and committee members. My name is 381 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 Richard Averso. I just moved here to the City. I was brought in actually from some personnel that was outside stating their cause. I've been here for hours now, and the reason I come in to City Hall was to find out what they're fighting for. So before you set your timer, could I ask you, what is the objective that you they were supposed to be stating their case for? 'Cause I haven't quite heard that. I've heard people state why not to put a stadium there, what's good for the City, what's bad for the City. And before I address you on this issue, from what I gather from all of these people, can you state what the forum is that you're here for today? 'Cause I haven't heard it one time, I haven't seen it in writing, but I've heard all of their testimony, and I'd like to address it from what I've heard today, and on the news.
We're gathered here this afternoon and tonight to hear from the people of Philadelphia about their thoughts on public financing of sports stadiums. That's a proposal before the Mayor and before the City Council involving hundreds millions of dollars, and the 382 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 question is, should they be publicly financed, is it appropriate to consider use of public money? And if so, how much and on what terms?
So today, you've been here all day to hear whether or not you should finance the stadium or not with taxpayers' money from the City, correct?
Okay, I just wanted to make that clear so that before I address you, I don't waste none of my tie. So I appreciate you explaining that. In my opinion, I've lived in Philadelphia as a child and I have been -- come back to the area to work in the area. From what I can tell from these gracious people and of your time, it's a very good cause, and whether or not I feel that you should use their money or not, I guess I'm not here long enough to state that. But if I lived here all my life and being from a small town that I am, I can give you a very small example and how you should be very careful how use their money or take their community and use it the way that you like, 'cause everybody counts. One, 383 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 I've been taught that from living in a smaller town. Two, I'll give you an example. In my town that I'm from, which I said I just moved up to the City to work here, the mayor down there wanted to enlarge a bridge. The town folk went for it because the mayor said, I want to enlarge this bridge. Well, the people said, If the mayor said do it, then we got to do it, he knows what's best for the town. Well, the contractors came in and they enlarged the bridge, but what the mayor failed to tell the people my community was, by and large, he's going to damage a 100-year-old building that was very important to the town history. So this venture in which he went into cost $80,000, hypothetically speaking. By the time it was all said and done, because the mayor hid facts from the community, which is proven, it's on record, the construction engineer said, I told the mayor the day before we started the project, This is not good for our town because if we enlarge it, the traffic demands are not there, we don't need a larger bridge. And if 384 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 we do, that building, which has been a part of our town history, will be damaged. Well, sure enough, it sent a crack up the building that was over 100 years old. Not only did it $80,000 to do because the mayor felt it was right and didn't go by all the facts that were presented to himself and the committee, it also cost our town people over a million dollars to keep that one building standing. And all I'm saying is, before you make your decision, think about what these people said in this room today. There were a lot of facts about education, about the City and the problems, but we're all aware of that. I come to this City, I see all of that. But tonight our issue is whether or not the City of Philadelphia should appropriate money or funds or taxes for this venture into the stadium. And before you make that decision and hand it to the mayor, think of that building that I'm telling you about. We were told it would only cost $80,000 for that bridge. Well, we still travel over the bridge. For no 24 reason we got the bridge 'cause we didn't need it, but these facts were hidden, and that building 385 RESOLUTION NO. 000325 cost a million dollars to keep standing. We still got it, thank god. But just by him not informing all of the facts and going by all of the facts, he made a wrong decision cost, and it us over a million dollars. Don't cost their community their community. Make sure you look out for their best interests before you stamp a price tag on that stadium. That's all I'd like to say and I appreciate your time.
Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? (No response.)
I want to thank you all for your patience and your time and certainly your testimony. I think it has helped all of us. Thank you all very much. (Applause.) (Adjourned at 9:55 p.m.) - - - 386 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, June 20, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RESOLUTION NO. 000325 __________________________________, DEBRA ANN WHITEHEAD, Registered Professional Reporter and __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter