All right. 10 Thank you, Madam President. 11 I'm sorry for the time. 12
13 You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you. Good morning -- good afternoon. PANEL: Good afternoon.
For the record, could you please speak to the outcome or the summary of where you are with regards to MBE WBE participation? Not knowing where we will end up, what were the discussions 125 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through along the way?
Councilwoman, let me 4 address that for you. 5 Let me say that first and 6 foremost, this team was the only team, 7 prior to being awarded the notification 8 of license, to offer procurement 9 workshops in the community that reached 10 out to the minority and the women 11 business community as well as the local 12 business community. 13 Our diversity plan speaks specifically to that, and we were cited by the Gaming Commission as having the best diversity plan. We have also, by representation of the gentleman here today, Mr. Martin that will act as our procurement person, diversity will come under him. So from a structural standpoint, we already have figured out where we're going to put diversity and the importance that it will play. That's separate and apart from what will 126 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through happen in terms of outreach to diverse communities for jobs as well.
We've also worked 7 with a number of community organizations 8 to talk about what type of training can 9 be put in place, the type of financial 10 support we will offer to help facilitate 11 that training, and to do a balance 12 between the local neighborhood and the 13 City of Philadelphia as well.
I think it's also important to note that when we did the jobs forum, that in addition to the fact that it was over 400 people there, we had families there, where it was a grandmother, a mother and a father and a son or a daughter that were all looking for opportunities. And we have had -- continue to have communications from them asking status of where we are in 127 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through hiring and when we will start to hire.
4 Has there been any assessment in the 5 review of those perspective employees 6 around what percentage came from the 7 immediate community where the prospects 8 of these casinos may be and those who 9 came from outside the community 10 boundaries, whatever they are? 11
The zip codes 12 suggest that they come from all over the 13 City.
But the majority of the attendees at the career forum came from the immediate community, and that was intentional on our part --
-- as a good-faith effort to show that, first and foremost, we want to make sure that we reach out to the neighbors to let them know that 128 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through we want to be a partner with them.
4 Mm-hmm. Now, as much as there is 5 sentiment that we should become more 6 regional in our approach to matters like 7 this, there is sentiment amongst this 8 legislative body that first 9 opportunities should go first to 10 Philadelphia residents. 11 What level of discussion or 12 commitment was spoken to that particular 13 issue?
Okay. And so can one define that in terms of numbers or percentage? Is it 75 percent Philadelphia --
We're actually working on an agreement with the City right now, and those numbers will be addressed in a development agreement. We haven't finalized the 129 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through agreement yet but, you know, we certainly expect to have a high number in there.
6 Okay, okay, but -- I'll accept that, 7 although that doesn't completely answer 8 my question. 9 One other question. Uh... 10
Well, I did want 11 to make one other point. 12 I mean, I think -- I really do 13 think that actions speak louder than words. And to date, if you look at the firms that we've hired to do things for SugarHouse -- and there's been a lot of different areas we've needed to hire firms -- we've hired, I think, nine or ten, you know, minority-owned or women-owned businesses, you know, across all facets of our operations. So, you know, we -- to date, I think we --
From the exec. to the non-skill area. 130 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
5 Okay, okay. 6 I'm so sorry, Madam President. 7 I had another question that just escaped 8 me. 9 Thank you for your testimony. 10
Are 12 there any other questions from members 13 of the committee?
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. 131 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through One quick question just for clarity purposes. The million dollars that has been offered for the community as a part of the community-benefits agreement, is it understood that that million dollars will not have to pay for police and traffic support that is traditionally the responsibility of the government?
Correct. Again, 12 this money is for the -- for the 13 community group to decide how it gets spent. There's no strings attached that says, Hey, a certain percentage needs to be spent on police or on traffic.
It's really the community's decision as to where that money gets spent.
Okay. And I thought I heard earlier testimony about traffic -- traffic control, and I just wondered if --
No, that -- we're 132 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through talking about having a dialogue with the community, an ongoing with the community on issues like that.
That 6 million dollars has no bearing on any 7 ancillary support for the operations and 8 -- 9
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Mr. Sheldon, I do agree with your testimony; SugarHouse has had numerous meetings with the folks in the northern end of my district as well as Councilman Clarke's district. Has there been any change to your plan since the close of the public 133 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through comment period in June?
Well, as I 7 mentioned earlier, we met with -- you 8 know, we met with community groups in 9 March and showed them our original 10 plans, and we got a lot of feedback. 11 And subsequent to that, we did 12 make some changes, but, again, we had 13 public hearings before the Gaming Board, where we presented our new plan, and our website has all of our latest plans and pictures for people to review.
So there may have -- there were some changes that had occurred between, I think it was, June 6th or whatever was the public comment period and this --
I -- I -- Councilman, I can't recall the exact dates we introduced our new plans, but I can certainly get back to you on that. 134 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
6 You're welcome. 7 Are there any other questions 8 or comments? 9 The Chair recognizes 10 Councilwoman Brown. 11
12 Thank you, Madam President. 13 Additional questions around the board, the community board. Speak to agreements or potential agreements on the composition of that board. And was there discussion given to -- ultimately, you have -- someone has to be there to execute or implement those decisions rendered by the board. Speak to that, if you would.
Well, again, it's been our position that, you know, we want to provide this money to the community and let them decide who should 135 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through be on the board and how all their plans should be implemented. I mean, we're certainly available to assist and to consult, but we really -- you know, the plans was to really make that the community's responsibility.
10 Okay. And then, finally, past 11 experience hopefully always informs how 12 you do things differently going forward. 13 Given SugarHouse's experience in other municipalities, have there been, we'll call this, "opportunities" where you had to figure out a way to keep the community whole while you moved to make the goals of SugarHouse real?
Well, we operate -- you know, the principals of SugarHouse currently operate in Niagara 136 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Falls, and, you know, I think we have a very good relationship with the community up there, and we've been active, good neighbors and active community members. And, you know, you could certainly check that out for yourself. I -- you know, I stand by our record up there. I'm not quite sure if that answers your question, but...
Clarity would be helpful. Examples. I mean, "good" means what? Define that for me.
Well, you know, we make a lot of contributions to local charities, and, you know, our employees volunteer to do different things in the community, whether it's, you know, cleanup days or that kind of stuff. And, you know, I think the City of Niagara Falls had a positive experience based on -- you know, based 137 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through on our -- from our operation up there.
4 Okay. Did you want to add, 5 Mr. President, on this question? 6
Well, the 11 majority of my experience was in Nevada 12 in Las Vegas and Reno, and those are 13 communities that are really built around the tourism industry.
And so tourism, casinos, hospitality all work closely with the community for -- for -- in any number of ways. So -- but it's always been that way there, so it's not exactly a relative example, I would suppose.
Okay, then. Thank you all for your 138 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through testimony. Thank you, Madam President.
5 You're welcome. 6 Any other questions from 7 members of the committee? 8 (No further questions.) 9
Thank you. I would ask Mr. McPherson to call our next witnesses. MR. McPHERSON: Representatives from Foxwoods: Jeff Rottwitt and William Schwartz. (Witnesses come forward.)
We're still trying to conduct the hearing, so those of you who are having conversation, may I ask that you do so in the corridor. 139 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Thank you. Good afternoon. Welcome.
6 Please identify yourself for the record 7 and proceed with your testimony. 8
Madam President, 9 my name is Jeff Rottwitt. Members of 10 the Rules Committee and Councilman 11 DiCicco, thank you for having us here. 12 We're here to focus on the 13 bills that are before you and not attempt to revisit the issues that were thoroughly addressed by the Gaming Control Board in terms of the award of the license. We also will try to not usurp too much of your time to repeat some of the very thorough and thoughtful testimony that preceded us this morning. I'll turn it over to my partner William Schwartz.
May it please the committee, my name is William G. 140 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Schwartz, and I am here with my partner, Jeffrey B. Rottwitt. We represent Philadelphia Entertainment Developer Partners, LP, a successful licensee for a Category II gaming license under the State Gaming Act and owner of 1499 South Christopher Columbus Boulevard. We are here today to offer testimony in opposition to the package of ordinances, except for 070013 before this committee relating to the rezoning of our site at 1499 South Christopher Columbus Boulevard as well as the proposed changes which are detrimental to and which limit and exclude gaming from the Philadelphia Code. This package of anti-gaming measures is clearly an attempt to halt the development of casinos in Philadelphia and, in turn, impede the much-needed creation of jobs as well as wage and property tax relief and increased tax revenues that the advent of gaming to the Commonwealth of 141 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 Pennsylvania will bring to the City of 3 Philadelphia. 4 More importantly, these bills 5 have not been subject to proper planning 6 and are poorly thought out, or not 7 thought out at all. 8 Further, most legal scholars 9 would interpret these ordinances as 10 violating State law and violating the 11 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as the 12 Pennsylvania Supreme Court has, on 13 numerous occasions, stated that unjustly discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, and confiscatory zoning laws are invalid. Further, the State legislature has made it clear that the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board has sole and general jurisdiction over the siting of licensed gaming facilities in the Commonwealth. Clearly, the rezoning of what is known as "the Foxwoods Parcel" from a commercial designation, which is in 142 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 character with the surrounding retail 3 and commercial properties to a very 4 restrictive -- 5 (Jeers.) 6
-- to a very 7 restrictive residential use is void of 8 the careful planning and thought that 9 went into the current Commercial 10 Entertainment District originally 11 planned for this site and which is 12 legally required for all zoning changes. 13 The R-10A zoning designation will keep this site undeveloped and make it, for all intents and purposes, undevelopable. Ordinance No. 070009 along with the other package of bills, if passed, will limit one of the City's most scarce resources, waterfront property, to a zoning classification that will continue to hinder development. The Commercial Entertainment District, which was envisioned for this site, went through extensive planning 143 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through and has safeguards to ensure public access to the river. Obviously, a change to R-10A would not guarantee such access, and most likely, such access would be inconceivable in any R-10A development. This would not allow the development of the waterfront as envisioned by the current administration and, I guess, by this Council. In addition to the lack of utility that this zoning classification will provide, it will cost the City millions of dollars in lost tax revenues. Gaming revenues aside -- although projected in the millions -- limiting this land to single-family homes rather than high revenue- generating commercial projects envisioned under the current commercial zoning -- it's currently zoned C-3 -- and soon-to-be-proposed CED zoning will deprive the City of millions of dollars in property, wage, business, privilege, 144 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 gross repeats, use and occupancy, and 3 numerous other taxes and benefits. 4 Add to the increased revenues 5 guaranteed by the advent of gaming, and 6 it is clear that this property should be 7 a cash cow for the City's General Fund 8 and allow for Council and the 9 Administration to appropriate additional 10 funds for education, police and fire, 11 and our other city services. 12 In addition to the potential 13 tax revenues, there are also the thousands of permanent jobs and thousands of building trades and construction jobs, which the current two casino developments will generation. This attempt at change in zoning is invalid because it constitutes special legislation as well as spot zoning. The ordinances would seek to make gaming a regulated use subject to the Zoning Board of Adjustment's approval and/or seeks to prohibit gaming entirely or also subject to challenge 145 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 that casino use is preempted by the 3 State and would no doubt considered by 4 any court to be a de facto and de jure 5 exclusionary zoning, which the Supreme 6 Court has said violates both the United 7 States Constitution and the Pennsylvania 8 Constitution. 9 If such a decision is found by 10 the courts, then, as you know, gaming 11 would be allowed anywhere in the City. 12 CED was properly crafted 13 through a process to ensure that the City did not usurp State authority on the siting of casinos. The R-10A and the other proposed ordinances, except 070013, are examples of private-interests, shoot-from-the-hip legislation and should be treated as such. We ask that the committee vote to oppose Bill No.'s 0706 [sic] through 07012 [sic]. Thank you.
146 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Good 6 afternoon, everyone. 7 With all due respect, you made 8 a much different presentation than 9 SugarHouse. You didn't address -- 10 are -- have there been any -- and I 11 understand your dispute with the 12 legislation, I understand that. 13 But have there been any attempts or any conversations with the general community down around you? And if so, what have they been?
We have been very diligent in our attempt to engage in a dialogue. Unfortunately and very regrettably, we have had little success with the -- (Applause.) 147 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
We have met with representatives of the major community groups through the good offices of Councilman DiCicco. We met with a number of them early on. We have had countless living room meetings and coffees with as many people who would meet with us as possible. But the -- as the representatives of SugarHouse said, the major groups have essentially boycotted efforts to have a substantive dialogue.
Okay. I think in fairness, I think there was the indication that there was a lot of progress up around the SugarHouse. Was there -- would you define any progress being made with the residents around your site?
Other than -- other than I believe that we had successful living room meetings with those who were in attendance in terms of cutting to the chase and having the bare 148 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through bones for a Special Services District, no, we have -- we have really nothing tangible in that regard. We have said publicly to the City and to the Gaming Board that we will follow the paradigm, I think, that was created in South Philadelphia for the Sports District to create a Special Services District. We've had conversations with the City Solicitor's Office about the contours of that, and the Administration has suggested that they may be more interested themselves in defining which groups are represented and how the governance of that district would be finalized. And we are totally supportive of, quite frankly, any outcome that is embraced by the community groups and by the City.
Thank you. Just one more question, if I 149 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through could. And I know it's a big question whenever your site is brought up. Traffic congestion. What -- I know there are some plans, you know. Could you just briefly kind of describe it? Because I think no matter where you live in the City, when they describe that area, the first thing is the traffic congestion along Columbus Boulevard and all. What remedies have you suggested? What people do you have working on this to try to deal with those kind of -- with the traffic, the general traffic issues?
Certainly. That's the 800-pound gorilla that we have to address, and we knew that. And we think successfully so. I mean, that's the message, unfortunately, we have not been able to successfully communicate because we have been drowned out by many other voices 150 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through that are addressing collateral issues. We retained Orth Rogers, one of the preeminent traffic firms in the region, to analyze the current traffic bottle necks that exist, largely driven by a lot of the big-box retailers on the south end of Columbus Boulevard. And we knew that that was Job One because there was no sense for us looking to invest in Phase I over a half a billion dollars and through three phases approximately a billion dollars if our customers couldn't get to our facility.
So out of pure selfishness, we needed to solve the problem. But, of course, being a good citizen, we needed to address it for the community groups. They have undertaken probably the most exhaustive of any of the five applicants of a traffic analysis far removed from the few intersections that 151 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through surround our property and have come up with a series of plans that involve additional left-turn lanes, traffic signalization, some widening that not only addresses the marginal traffic that our project would bring to the site, but also actually, after taking that into account, improves existing traffic flow by 32 percent. So in other words, the situation -- (Laughter.)
If I was a community resident, I would also scoff at that, and we welcome the opportunity to sit down with them. I think that the -- this committee should take some comfort in the fact that the Gaming Board had its own independent traffic consultant that reviewed our plan thoroughly and confirmed and corroborated our conclusion. In addition, the City Streets 152 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Department we worked with through all throughout the course of the calendar year 2006, and the City Streets Department also corroborates our conclusions. We, unfortunately, have been frustrated with not having had the opportunity to present this to people who should be skeptical, who should look at it as whatever we generate might be propaganda. We're happy to be able to have the opportunity to sit down and explain it and show why our conclusions are correct and why they have been verified and corroborated by independent traffic consultants for the Gaming Board.
Sir, maybe I misheard you. Did you say a little earlier, when you were describing the traffic, did you call it "marginal traffic"?
The additional traffic that our project would generate 153 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through over the top of the existing traffic.
It's just 6 semantics. We're just saying the extra 7 traffic -- 8
No, extra, the 11 extra traffic. 12 In other words, when you take 13 into account all of the traffic, which is those -- the traffic that's currently there plus what we would generate, the conditions would improve by 32 percent after our traffic improvements. (Jeers.)
I'm just -- let me just piggyback on that question. How many people do you expect there a day on average?
Well, it depends 154 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through upon what phase.
How do you characterize that as a marginal increase in traffic? (Applause.)
Councilman -- no, councilman, I was not using "marginal" in the sense of suggesting that it was insignificant. 155 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
"Marginal" was 4 just simply by extra, additional 5 traffic. I'll re -- 6
Yeah, I think we all misunderstood that. Okay. The traffic report, have you provided that to either Councilman 156 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through DiCicco or anyone? I mean --
Yes. The City 4 has, it the Gaming Board has it, and 5 we've distributed it actually to the 6 community groups. 7
Okay. 8 Could it be distributed to the 9 committee, also? 10
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Good afternoon. Why did you select this site? How many other sites did you look at?
We -- we -- the 5 partnership that owns the site is 6 comprised of a large group of local 7 partners in Foxwoods' development. And 8 Foxwoods' development, they assessed 9 every site in town and probably 10 discussed the opportunities with every 11 landowner. 12 They ultimately decided to pick 13 the local partners in this who had this site before Foxwoods' involvement because of a combination of factors. They -- they feel that with the probability that there would have been a casino on the northern end of the waterfront, that this site presents an historical opportunity for the City, who has labored long and hard to try to get waterfront development, (indiscernible) development along the entire length of the waterfront. They recognized the traffic 158 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through issues, but they understood that the local partnership presented unique aspects that no one else did. Forty-two percent of the revenue from this ownership group will go to charity. So as they balanced, as most things in life, Councilwoman, the various pros and cons of the various sites, their view was that this site presented the best alternative.
Okay. 13 Because isn't this site near -- you know, I'm not from South Philadelphia, you know, I'm not super-familiar with Delaware Avenue, but isn't this near Washington Avenue?
Okay, all right. 'Cause I was actually down there one Sunday, looking for Staples, and I really didn't know where it was. So I was going in and out of the various shopping plazas, and it was really a lot of traffic on that Sunday. 159 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through So -- (Applause.)
So just 5 lately is when I really kind of 6 understood exactly where your site was 7 going to be. 8 We -- I've been -- we were 9 dealing in this but further north with 10 the Trump project that was closest to my 11 district, and I hadn't really been 12 paying that much attention to the South 13 Philadelphia waterfront development. However, I just think it's a lot of traffic down there already. I mean, it is heavy traffic. (Applause.)
So that's what made me wonder why you chose that site, because it's just so much going on down there.
We fully acknowledge that the community is enduring very difficult traffic situations as it currently consists -- 160 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through uh, persists. And right now, there are no plans that I'm aware of to attempt to alleviate that. Essentially, you have the status quo. And we fully understand the apprehension and skepticism that is simply human nature, but we would love to have an opportunity to come to reappear. We can go over the traffic with you so you could see yourself. We believe we are the one solution for the community to address the current traffic predicament that they currently have to endure. We believe that we will create a -- an improvement over the current traffic conditions after you add our traffic in -- (Jeers.)
And we want to be able to show that to you. We will be happy to reappear at such time as you would like to -- to schedule that.
Well, 161 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through those train tracks that are right near you, they're not operable, are they? I mean, it looks like it's a lot of weeds and whatnot growing up out of that.
The answer is 7 that they are sparsely used, and there 8 have been discussions about possibly 9 putting in a light-rail system that 10 might alleviate vehicular traffic by 11 providing an opportunity for people 12 throughout the entire waterfront 13 district to travel up and down to the restaurants and to the condominiums that are being built there, without ever having to get in a -- in an automobile.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. 162 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Councilwoman, I can tell you, I drive that street every day just about. And from the exit ramp at Washington Avenue to now about Oregon -- used to be Snyder, now about Oregon -- is any time of the day, not rush hour, it can be in the middle of the morning or in the middle of the afternoon, you can't move on that street, and -- (Applause.)
And I -- I 13 know many people who have lived there have developed this little trick of when you're in the middle lane between Christian Street and Washington Avenue and the people are turning off onto Christian Street, you got to do that little zigzag to get on the -- it's -- it's dangerous and -- And the other issue, though, I need to raise is the relationship to your proximity to the commercial Port of Philadelphia. I know that SugarHouse has issues relative to the river, but 163 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through they're somewhat back, they're somewhat set back so -- and you guys are kind of up, right up front there. Truck traffic on our -- on Columbus Boulevard, a/k/a Delaware Ave. or /Delaware Avenue is an issue because it does -- it's the major way in which the port is fed its goods for export and for import. That traffic, as it's delayed, costs money. The cost of that money could -- and I think logically may -- create a situation where a shipper says, You know what? I can't get in and out of that port anymore. You know, my truck guy's got to sit here -- (Applause.)
My trucking company or my shipping company has to have its, you know, people idling and wasting gas, polluting the neighborhood, polluting the environment, and also creating costs for me to use the Port of Philadelphia. 164 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through I mean -- and we have a long and important history of employment there, both with stevedoring and with trucking, and I don't think that that should suffer. Because the problem that I face with all of the studies -- and I don't discount that your -- the studies are being done in good faith, and you want to improve that area too 'cause you want to get your customers in there. I know from dealing with the I-95 ramps from back in -- God, I'm getting old 'cause this is back in -- this has got to be 28 years -- 27, years ago. It took forever to get things done from PennDOT to mitigate the situation relative to the ramps or 95 going through that neighborhood. It's got to be -- (Applause.)
I would estimate that if they started today to appropriate the money to design the 165 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through mitigation ramps and highways things that need to be done, it's got to be a minimal of five years before those things are actually operable. And what do we do in the meantime? Because the traffic issue that I talked to you about relative to the Delaware Avenue artery and its relation to the port, the other problem is that if I'm sitting there, trying to get to Ikea or to Home Depot or to your casino, and I'm sitting there long enough, I'm making a right-hand turn somewhere. And I'm going to get on Front Street or I'm going to get on Second Street or I'm going to get on Moyamensing Avenue -- (Applause.)
-- and I'm going to figure out a way to get where I want to go, but I'm not going to sit and idle in this traffic. And that's the crux of the problem. And not only is it the port 166 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through and its commercial aspects, but it's -- it's shifting, because of congestion, the traffic west. And west is where people live. And it's -- I mean, that's the problem. (Applause.) (Cheers.)
So while I 11 -- while I -- and I know your task, as 12 part of the gaming of Act 71, is to get 13 that temporary facility and to get the slots up and running as soon as possible. So we're going to be bringing people to that area because the State wants the revenue, the City wants the revenue, you guys certainly want the revenue, and there's nothing evil about that. But while we're waiting for the mitigation, the concrete to be poured for the ramp that goes directly to your door, I don't know what's going to 167 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through happen 'cause it's going to be a nightmare for you and for us. And that's the problem. (Applause.)
Yeah. I think 11 you have very ably summarized the 12 challenge that currently exists, and I 13 won't take issue with anything you had to say. In fact, I think you actually, Councilman, make my argument. What I'm saying to you right now is that the shippers who might have a legitimate question about whether it's cost-effective for them to use our ports have that current conundrum today, as we speak. You just said, anytime of the day, you run into the issues there. We believe that we are the only solution. There is no discussion -- (Jeers.) 168 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
And I -- I -- I hear the -- I hear the audience, and I understand, and you should be skeptical. But what I'm saying is, you should want to then hear the rationale and see the money that Foxwoods will be spending out of its pocket to improve the conditions now so that those shippers can get through.
I'm not 12 discounting your desire or your 13 intention in fixing an existing problem and I have no argument with it. What I have argument with is: What is the impact of the 10 to 15,000 or more visitors per day and their automobiles while the problem is being solved? Because you can't just throw down an offramp without taking a lot of time to design it and a lot of time to build it. I mean -- and that's basically -- And the other issue as it 169 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through relates to any offramp or any other mitigation, do I have to take a couple streets? I mean, on-ramps don't necessarily just appear. (Applause.)
They 8 need -- they need expanse so that they 9 can move. 10 And what -- I mean, we lost -- 11 and I don't want to go over old history, 12 and maybe you know the history of it or 13 maybe you don't. We lost literally thousands of homes from Queen Village through Pennsport through Whitman because some, you know, U.S. Department of Transportation policy at the time gave states tons of money to build highways. And those homes had people living in them and they had to move. And those houses were torn down, and we have a lovely concrete thing that goes right down the middle of our community. And I don't want to be in a 170 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through position to have to tell some more people or have the State tell some more people that they got to get out of their houses 'cause we got to build an exit ramp into Foxwoods. (Applause.)
Again, I 9 couldn't agree more. 10 First off, we're not planning 11 to do a temporary facility, so we would 12 -- 13
No. 19 So we recognize the challenges that would be present were we to attempt to be attracting them while the roadwork was underway. We have a couple of years to undertake and complete the roadwork, all of which are changes to the local road 171 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through network and not an offramp. Were an offramp to be embraced by PennDOT, it would not involve the condemnation or the loss of one residence.
Based on 12 PennDOT's last performance last week, I 13 don't know if I necessarily trust them to be designing the ramp that well. (Applause.)
Well said. But I think that Rhina Cutler, who used to be a City official, is leading the effort now to begin to look at that --
-- which is down the road, but I think a cornerstone of that is that not one residence would be 172 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through taken.
All right. 4 I just wanted to -- and I think you 5 understand the passion that some of us 6 who have lived and grew up in that 7 neighborhood have relative to these 8 issues because they're deep-seated and 9 they're historical, and they've affected 10 a lot of people in negative ways. 11 And I'm not disagree -- again, 12 I'm not denigrating your efforts or your 13 studies, and I -- at some point in time, I hope we could figure out a way to make this all work, but I -- I know there's going to be a period of real pain and I don't know how long that period of pain's going to be just on the configuration of the roadway, not all the arguments we could have about social ills and all those things. But I don't want to see -- as you said, you're not taking one house. I don't want to see one house taken, one business taken, and I don't want to see 173 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through one port job lost, and I don't want to see anybody go out of business as a result of us having to reconfigure this whole area, and I know -- hopefully, you share the same --
Well, I born and 8 raised in Olney, but if I was from 9 Pennsport, I would probably be from 10 Missouri and say, "Show me." 11
And we're -- al we want is an opportunity to have that dialogue to show them.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning, gentlemen. 174 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through For the Rules Committee's benefit, the independent traffic study engineer we hope to have signed on by the end of this week. That was the resolution supported by all members of Council to retain an independent traffic engineer. On the issue of the City Streets Department engineers' findings, I think it's also important that the Rules Committee understand that the person who worked previously for the Streets Department was immediately dismissed upon supplying that recommendation without authorization from the Streets Department, meaning that the Streets Department did not necessarily concur with his findings. He was fired as a result of that. He did it basically on his own. On the issue of the traffic study, Foxwoods' study -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- when you did this study, it did not take into consideration two 175 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 casinos on the Columbus Boulevard/ 3 Delaware Avenue corridor that was 4 site-specific? 5
Site- 7 specific. So it did not take into 8 consideration another casino within 9 three miles of its location. 10
We're working 11 now with Gannet Fleming, the -- the 12 traffic consultant for SugarHouse, to 13 take a look at those issues.
So it's reasonable to say that not only the Streets Department study may have been flawed; there may have been obviously some opportunities that need to be adjusted based on your own consulting engineers' findings now that there's another casino, a potential casino, within three miles.
We actually thought the Streets Department analysis was magnificent; we wouldn't call it 176 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through flawed.
Well, 4 certainly. It agreed with your 5 consultant, naturally. 6 I think, Mr. Schwartz, you 7 mention something about this casino kind 8 of fits into the City's riverfront 9 development plan? 10
What I said was 11 that the CED, which had originally been 12 looked at for this location as well as 13 the SugarHouse location for casino use, took into consideration, with a lot of planning, the neighboring uses on both sides of these -- of this project. On the one side where you have a shopping center, it's a commercial use. On the other side, you have the Comcast and you have vacant land, and then you have the sheet-metal workers school as well as their meeting building. These are -- these are commercial uses. And -- and the CED would be 177 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through compatible with those uses.
Well, let 4 me, for the purposes of giving you some 5 information, there is and has been a 6 development plan that has been being 7 worked on on the sheet-metal union hall 8 site for a residential high-rise 9 condominium and mixed-use development. 10
So it's 12 not specifically just going to be for 13 commercial use. There are a couple of -- there are other
There are other interests. I know what's on the ground now.
But there are other interests, so it's not that 178 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through the City -- and the way that I understood your comments was that the City had a plan to keep this basically commercial, and that's not accurate. In fact, there is no plan.
And that's 9 why the Mayor signed an executive order, 10 although some people may not be in favor 11 of that, but the Mayor did sign an 12 executive order where Penn Praxis is now 13 working with the community to develop a master plan, and that master plan could very well turn out to be more of a residential environment as opposed to -- (Applause.)
-- as opposed to additional commercial. No 20 one knows yet because that process is still being fleshed out. And I thought that was important for this committee to understand that as well. Also, are any of the owners of Foxwoods here today? 179 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
Well, I -- 4 I think if I can use my colleague Wilson 5 Goode -- Councilman Goode, in a recent 6 discussion with Wachovia, I think it's 7 rather insulting -- and no disrespect to 8 you gentlemen, you're doing a job for 9 your client -- that the owners did not 10 even have the courtesy of coming here 11 today. 12 (Applause.) 13 (Cheers.)
And I would hope that you bring this message back to them, that in the future, if these discussions continue, I think we need a face with the operators to know who we're dealing with. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.)
Madam President? I apologize. 180 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
Has your 5 plan, the Foxwoods plan, changed at all 6 since the public comment period ended in 7 June of '06? 8