I agree with that. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Thank you, Councilman Kenney.
Thank you. Are there any further questions or comments the City Solicitor? (No further questions or 98 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 comments.)
Thank you. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: The Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners. (Witnesses come forward.)
Again, for the record, Carl Primavera, Ira Gubernick, David Sander. We have extra copies of the development and settlement agreement if you're interested or if it's convenient. And my sole purpose today really is to allow the committee to ask specific questions of Ira. He will tell you in a few minutes that this was not an agreement that was done in haste, that this was an agreement that probably took a year, that there were various things 99 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 happening. We were requesting zoning; the City was not willing to entertain permits that we thought we were entitled to. There were disputes over taxes. There were disputes over the fact that we felt that the development agreement was really not required. It wasn't required in the gaming legislation, it wasn't required as a matter of law. And probably the biggest misconception that people have is to think that the development agreement was the document that was going to provide resources to the City to accommodate gaming. This is basically something that the City was able to force us to do because they had leverage. But as you remember the testimony -- and even Representative Keller said it today -- the lion's 100 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 share of the money from gaming goes to the State and then comes back to the City. So the whole idea is that it's self-funding through gaming. The idea is that the State went into gaming and it decided to do it through partnership with Foxwoods. So to say that, well, we don't have money for the streets or the police or all of these other things because it's not in the development is really inaccurate. The development agreement is basically icing on the cake that was extracted because the City took a very, very firm line with both SugarHouse and Foxwoods and says, You want a ten-year abatement? We don't think you're entitled to it. You think you're exempt from U&O? We're going to fight you on that. So they took us to task and said, We're going to delay you and fight you until you sign the agreement. Once we signed the 101 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 agreement, things went much quicker. So that's the background. Ira, I don't know if you have some opening remarks or whether we just want to handle questions from the committee.
Thank you, Carl. My name is Ira Gubernick. I'm an attorney at Klehr Harrison. Also a lifelong resident of Philadelphia in this area. In fact, my father's beer store that I worked at for almost every summer and weekend of my teenage life was located at 6th and Moore Streets. It was a former Frank's Bottling Plant. The warehouse before that is now the -- part of the parking lot for the Mummers Museum. So I've spent quite a bit of time in this area. I also want the point out that this site we're talking about is a site that's been controlled by Bally's 102 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Gaming through an option since 1995. It was a site that was picked back then and has been a known site and vacant land, quite frankly, except for, I think, some period of time when it was a driving range, to be a potential gaming site for a long time. So I am very respectful of the positions you've taken and the jobs you've done on behalf of your constituents. I'm very respectful of the constituents here that are sitting behind me. But we went through a very long process to get to where we are today, including the development agreement. We went through a very long process and had no idea, going into the award of a license, that we would receive a license. And we're grateful to be able to bring the project to you. I also want to add that, as Carl said, we're paying a 55 percent 103 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 total tax rate when you add it up, including a percent host fee and a 4 percent economic-development fee. 5 million on 3,000 slots, going up to approximately $18 million. The economic piece of that, which goes to the State and should be used for projects, hopefully, in this region, is greater. Obviously 5 percent's greater than 4 percent. With respect to the development agreement, meetings started as early as January of 2006 -- 2007, with Romy Diaz. We were just coming off the awarded license. We, again, are probably the most heavily taxed business enterprise in the State at 55 percent, and we did not at the time take a position that we had to pay additional taxes to the City. Having said that, it was a long, arduous process. Our 104 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 negotiations actually took longer than SugarHouse's. And we did reach an agreement in concept with Romy Diaz sometime in May that Foxwoods would enter into a development agreement that was very similar and comparable to what SugarHouse entered into. We wanted to be on a level playing field with SugarHouse. That was -- also, an arm's length agreement was negotiated, and a lot of what you see in our agreement is very similar to what SugarHouse entered into. And what we did not want was a situation where the public or City Council or anyone looking at it felt that one casino was being treated in a different manner than the other casino. We intend to be very similar enterprises and both bring economic development to the City. The agreement itself contains a number of provisions, most -- a lot 105 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 of which, by the way, were already promised to the Gaming Board in the process for us to get selected. There was an agreement to fund a special services district very similar to what the stadiums have, which could bring a million dollars a year as the community directs. 75 million. It was through two years of tax disputes. million assessed. million. It was one of the last points finalized. 5 million. 75 million that was --
Now, the sewer pipe payment, there was a lot of testimony and I don't want to go into it in detail, but just my recollection is, the City Water Department asked us to put in an infrastructure that was going to assist the City in dealing with the neighborhood issues unrelated to Foxwoods, and we said we would contribute $5 million to that, although it wouldn't serve any benefit to us. It was a $5 million gift, as I called it the last time. But the City has the right to have our contractor expand that work. And if our contractor, at our expense, ends up spending $20 million, 5 is the gift to the City, but 15 would, in effect, be accredited against money that would otherwise be paid by Foxwoods to the City. So that's -- is that correct? 107 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28
The discussion was -- and, again, I don't want to use as hard a term as you used, but one term you used was "extraction." We were not adding an additional burden to the sewer usage. However, my understanding is there's a master plan to develop and improve the sewer problems in South Philadelphia. We recognize that that's a problem. We want to be good neighbors and we do want to improve if we can. When the sewer system is improved by the City over time, one thing that will be a part of that and will be helpful is to have this enlarged pipe going down into the river. So the feeling -- so that we don't have an issue later on, later down the road, was to take care of building that pipe for you today in the City, even though it was not going to benefit our property. Only had the 108 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 construction delays once, and we would contribute up to $5 million towards that payment. That was the discussion on the sewer pipe.
And then the other issue that I recall briefly was the ramp, and the ramp does not happen in Phase I. So for Phase II, we have to go back to the Planning Commission. Do we have to go back to Council, I believe --
-- because of the plan of development. So the concept was that if and when we come back for Phase II -- and we now have, through PennDOT and through the other studies, information about where the ramp will go, what's the expense -- there will be some collaborative approach. If it's a process that doesn't end in an agreement, we probably won't 109 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 have our plan of development approved by the City, the Planning Commission and also the Gaming Board, right? We have to go back for Phases II and III with the Gaming Board.
So that's why it's not spelled out in detail because it's, in effect, a forward-looking requirement anyway. So they're the immediate responses, and Ira's available to answer any questions.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a point of order.
Thank you. Mr. Primavera, I'm a little bit confused on that. Would you go over that scenario again, the plan of development as it relates to Phases I, II and III, or just -- 110 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28
What the Supreme Court approved and what the Planning Commission approved is our Phase I development. So when we come back for Phases II and III, we have to go through the Gaming Board, we have to go through the Planning Commission and then have our plan of development approved. At that point in time, there is envisioned some infrastructure component, and it may be the ramp. So at that point in time, predictably, we'll have information as to where the ramp will go, what it will cost, and how it's going to be funded. There may be adequate funds in the federal government, there may adequate funds through the State through gaming revenues. So there's no suggestion that 111 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 the City's going to be tagged with the bill. I think the comment about fair share is just to make sure that it's a collaborative approach.
Well, if I hear it correctly, it is your opinion or assumption that Phase I would not require a ramp or some other alternative highway, roadway mitigation, whatever.
Now, I know it's been criticized by some people, but we believe the City and PennDOT have approved it. So what we're saying is the major infrastructure -- and I think that's what the Councilman is 112 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 referring to -- like a ramp or something like that is not envisioned in Phase I and will not be required.
-- is it fair to say that the developer agrees that we need to do something else in addition to the current roadway to maintain or be able to handle the additional traffic going forward?
The answer is yes. And there's actually language to that effect that's in the development agreement itself.
Okay. And we don't know what that cost will be 'cause we don't know what we're building yet. 113 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28
So how do we know -- how do we, in short, we, as City, State, whatever, the neighborhood, that -- let's assume they put a number on it that is not acceptable to you folks, to the developer; what happens then?
Then I assume the City won't approve our plan of development and the Gaming Board won't approve our Phase II plan.
No. We will find a way to get it resolved. It seems to me that the State and the City, which are partners, will work with us to partner to get past that. I mean, why would we ail be shortsighted. If Phase II and III are going 114 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 to provide more revenue to the City and State and to Foxwoods, then we will be creative and find the right solution, not only the design solution --
That's the premise behind gaming, to increase revenue for the City and the State; I understand that argument. I'm just concerned, again, that if you don't build II and III, what does that mean to your project? Is it that important -- we had a little bit of discussion, I think, at the last hearing. Is it that important to your project or is it not? And is it something that you're truly considering? Or is that why you're not even considering a ramp now, 115 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 'cause you don't think you're ever going to do II and III?
We're excited about the full buildout; we think that that's the potential that our site offers. Phase I stands on its own as a very successful facility, but we're always looking forward to make this Foxwoods facility as exciting and as welcoming as the other facility. So Phases II and III provide a hotel and some other amenities --
Possible condominiums, I think, if I'm not mistaken here.
Right. So we have never said that we wouldn't go forward with II and III. And we, quite frankly, think that upside potential is something we all want to see. And we don't think the site is inherently incapable of that. I think that the engineering 116 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 and the cooperation of agencies and City and State and federal government -- and we talked about it with Councilman Kenney. He had some ideas about ramping that would be, you know, not only helpful to the gaming but also to the shipping industry. So I don't see this as being a win/lose situation. I think that as we move forward in the process, it will be a win/win for everybody.
I guess for me, it goes back to my earlier statement when the Solicitor was testifying. Ideally, you want to do the full buildout in Phases I, II, and III, but we're not sure yet if we do II and III, and we're not sure what we need to do if we do II and III, although we know it's important to the full buildout, 'cause that's the ideal scenario. Isn't it in everyone's interest, including the developer, to 117 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 have that plan reviewed and decided upon now as opposed to -- (Applause.)
-- as opposed to five years from now, ten years, whatever it is, when the cost of developing or building that infrastructure improvement, whatever it may be, will certainly be far greater than what it is today?
And addresses the issues of traffic mitigation that we know and anticipate in Phase I and what we expect to be in Phase II and III. It's -- and I'm not -- I don't mean this to be sarcastic, but that's good planning. And why aren't we doing and discussing that in its entirety --
-- rather 118 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 than say, Well, we're going to wait 'cause, you know, the State -- it's going to be in the State's best interests and the City's best interests 'cause they're are partners in this 'cause they're making 55 percent and it's going to be in their best interests to make sure we have an infrastructure that can handle this traffic. That's all well and good but, you know, at some point, somebody's going to have to pick up the bill.
Well, if you remember, Jeff Greene, who was our traffic engineer, we presented a total redevelopment plan for the entire project, like a master plan, and we were designing the traffic and infrastructure to accommodate the master plan. PennDOT said, Look, since you're not building Phases II and III today and we think there's a lot of 119 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 other things that are happening in the City, in the State that are going to make whatever you do today in Phases II and III irrelevant, moot, and shortsighted, they asked us and we acquiesced. We said, Fine, we're willing to take Phase I and forgo Phases II and III at the request of PennDOT so that we don't shortsightedly design the wrong infrastructure, the same way they said when they built the Schuylkill, they didn't build it big enough. So PennDOT asked us -- and then the Planning Commission said the same thing. They said, Well, since you haven't designed Phases II and III, we're only approving Phase I as your plan of development. So it wasn't at our request. We were fully prepared to go through the complete design, and we had designed it, but it was PennDOT 120 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 saying, Well, to design something now that you may not build for another five or six or seven years, don't do that exercise. PennDOT has its own independent, long-range review, which Jeff Greene testified to. And they're doing all of their computer modeling and working with the federal government, and they realize that with port traffic increasing and people moving into the City, that, in effect, doing it now would be premature. So we never tried to do this in piecemeal, we never tried to do it shortsightedly. We're not trying to save a dime. You know that's not the case; you've seen our presentation. And we're willing to work with the City as we go forward. But the Phase I was the way that all the agencies thought best to implement something that we did know and did control rather than try to 121 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 project beyond the reasonable period.
I wasn't being accusatory of Foxwoods, that they're -- I'm just looking at this as a whole.
And government doesn't always do things right; we learned that from experience, and we are very familiar with some of the problems that PennDOT, in their infinite wisdom, did not look forward 10, years down the road -- no pun 15 intended -- and the consequences that 16 we're suffering in this city as a 17 result of their misrepresentation of 18 what they expected traffic to be or 19 whatever. 20 But we're in more modern times now than we were back when the Schuylkill Expressway was built and even I-95 for that matter. And there are ways of projecting a lot of that stuff. 122 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 So I'm just looking at the what-if. Why are we not having -- and it's not your fault and I appreciate that you were willing to, so we need to have PennDOT or somebody in to talk to them about why put things on hold; shouldn't we be planning going forward?
And we're willing to cooperate in any planning exercise. I mean, we hope that, in effect, Phase I will be as successful as it's projected, and then we'll be looking to do Phase II. So planning now is only helpful to moving into the Phase II and III.
Thank you, Madam Chair. From your description of your negotiations with the City, it sounds like you entered into these agreements under duress. 123 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 (Laughter.)
Well, that's a -- you know, that's a legal term and I can't debate the law 'cause we're not in a court of law. But what I can say is that there was a prior suggestion that this was a sweetheart contract, and I can tell you that the Solicitor had some very strong beliefs, and they, in effect, impeded our plan of development until we agreed to do exactly what SugarHouse had done. And, in effect, as you pointed out, many of the things we thought were entitlements, that were rights and privileges, they were holding back on. So --
Well, you can't hold back on a right or privilege. I mean, you can't. They made up -- you're contending that they made up a case in controversy and, wink-wink, you agreed and you signed an 124 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 agreement. I mean, that's basically --
Well, they didn't make it up; they made a case in controversy. And then --
You can't make a case in controversy without City Council having changed the law. Whether or not there's an abatement, that's this body's decision. Whether or not a property's disparaged, that's this body's decision. And, you know, that's something that you and I aren't going to resolve here today.
But "under duress," you're right, is a legal term. "Fair share" is not a legal term that I'm familiar with. (Laughter.) (Applause.)
At any rate, to be continued, Mr. Primavera. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions or comments.)
Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness was the Chamber of Commerce and they have submitted testimony. Are there any representatives from the Hotel Association? (Witness comes forward.)
Good evening. Kindly please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good evening. My name's Ed Gross. I'm the Executive Director of the Greater Philadelphia Hotel Association. 126 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 My association represents every hotel in Center City and 87 hotels throughout the Delaware Valley. We pay over $110 million in taxes. When you consider use-and-occupancy, liquor, real-estate, hotel tax, all of the hotels together pay over $110 million. Philadelphia hotels hire 14,000 people, who make an average wage of $22,000 a year. Eighty percent of all hotel workers reside in the City of Philadelphia the. Greater Philadelphia Hotel association urges the City to move forward on the construction of Foxwoods Casino. (Applause.) (Jeers.)
Please, let's have respect for each other. Thank you. Please proceed. 127 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28
Thank you. The casinos will bring more jobs, 1500 jobs in the casino alone and thousands of jobs in ancillary operations that will go along with the casinos. In addition, roughly a thousand construction jobs will result from the casinos, paying between 30 and $34 million in wages. It also will bring the reduction in City wage tax and pay for the expansion of the Pennsylvania Convention Center. The Pennsylvania Convention Center expansion will result in bigger, more profitable conventions to the City of Philadelphia and the region. Twenty-five hundred new hotel rooms will result in the expansion, which will result in more revenue to both the City and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. With the 2500 new rooms, 1750 new hotel jobs will result from the expanded center and the rooms that it 128 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 brings to Center City hotels. It will also provide our visitors with another entertainment option. It could prolong room stays for visitors, and it will also be another thing for visitors to do while they're here on business, for conventioneers, and it will had to the allure of the City. Many people are working hard in marketing the image of Philadelphia and bringing more visitors to our city, and this will only help market the City and conventions and to meeting planners. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. (Mr. Gross leaves witness table.)
Thank you, Madam President. Just quickly. In your testimony, you said something about the casinos would help fund the Convention Center expansion?
Yes. A lot of the money that's being -- I know the money has been appropriated by the State. 130 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28
Let's just stop you. There's no revenues from the casinos that's going towards the Convention Center expansion. You got information that's not accurate. None of that money -- (Applause.)
It's not for that. And my other question is: Does it matter where these casinos would be built --
When the City -- when the casinos were being looked at -- and I served on the Gaming Task Force about three years ago, three or four years ago. We put out a position that we want the casinos to be far enough away from our City treasures 131 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 such as the Liberty Bell and -- (Jeers.)
And a short cab ride from the Convention Center and Center City. So, you know, basically what we did when we decided that, we did not want -- you know, obviously, we did not want the casinos to be in, you know --
Let me ask you this: The Gaming Task Force, did it make any recommendations as to site?
What it did not -- it -- well, it listed the most profitable sites throughout the City.
But it didn't make a recommendation as to what 132 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 sites would be the more favorable.
It did not come right out and say -- we talked about this the last time and I know it was brought up before. What it did is, it listed by revenue which sites would bring in the most revenue. And I wish I had the sheet with me, but the sites chosen, you know, which I thought was pretty interesting, because at the time, it was well thought that the Gaming Task Force was a powerless committee that was wasting their time, yet all of the licenses that were applied for were at sites that were listed by revenue streams. Those were the sites where -- you know, even the Bud site was one of 'em, you know, the Donald Trump site. All of those sites -- all of the licensees were going after sites that were listed by the Gaming Task Force.
Do you 133 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 consider the Bud site a short cab ride from Center City?
I have never been -- we have never been in favor of the Bud site because we --
Maybe I misunderstood you. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
And you were a member of the task force and you cited the task force in your testimony.
Okay, all right. I just wanted to make that clear. All right. I don't have any 134 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 further questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Dino Rossi. (No response.)
Is Dino Rossi here? Please approach the witness table. (Witness comes forward.)
Good evening. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. Do you have written testimony?
I would like to suggest that perhaps you could abbreviate your remarks.
And 135 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 we will give a copy to the stenographer, and it will be transcribed in full.
All right. Thank you very much. Council President Verna, distinguished members of City Council, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dino Rossi. I am the president and CEO of the Community Self-Empowerment and Employment Program, which is a nonprofit community-based organization located right here in Philadelphia. I come to you today as a private tax-paying citizen of Philadelphia who is one hundred percent in favor of Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia. My topic for today is jobs. I once had a boss who had a very famous expression: "The best social work is a job." Respectfully, I am sure that there is no one here today in Council chambers who disagrees with this 136 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 statement. According to the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, the unemployment rate in Philadelphia is an alarming 34 percent. If you take a look at the parishes from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Baptist churches from the Philadelphia Baptist Association, synagogues from the Jewish Federation of Philadelphia, et cetera, the unemployment rate among the faith- based community in the Philadelphia region is 40 percent. The (indiscernible) collaborative, which is a real working partnership between the faith-based, community-based organizations and businesses of Philadelphia, work together with residents that represent for two years on one of the most critical issues facing us today. Without hesitation, number one was the lack of family-sustaining jobs with a good future. 137 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 The question is, why is the unemployment rate in the greater Philadelphia region so high? Well, some of the reasons -- I'm sure you know these, I'm not going to bore you with the statistics, I'm sure all of know this, but Philadelphia has the highest poverty rate, 25.1 percent. Also, 351,000 people in Philadelphia are on welfare, and that is -- that is very unfortunate, that is not acceptable. Now, we need the Foxwoods jobs. Foxwoods will offer a number of family-sustaining jobs such as accounts-receivable clerk, bar, marketing associate, income audit clerk, interior attendant, locksmith, payroll clerk, security officer, slot attendant, slot technician, et cetera. Foxwoods will provide 951 jobs in the first cycle, and Foxwoods is the most diverse organization in their industry. 138 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Many of the people who are on welfare, unemployed, et cetera, and are not working want to go to work, but they want good jobs with a future. These are the types of jobs that both Foxwoods and SugarHouse will offer. Mr. Vincent J. Termini, President and CEO of Termini Gold Medal Pastries, summed it up this way: The unemployment rate in South Philadelphia, the home of Foxwoods, is 36 percent. We need good-paying, family-sustaining jobs, and we need them right now. Here is an organization, Foxwoods, that can and will be a part of a solution to the economic growth picture of this region. It is time for the City, the residents, supporters and non-supporters, et cetera, to sit down with Foxwoods, work out the differences with respect and move forward to help make Philadelphia the 139 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 great destination city we all know it can be. From a personal view, I want to thank Council President Verna for her help in starting my organization years ago and Councilman DiCicco for recently meeting with community leaders who are in favor of the Foxwoods project. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Any questions or comments? (No questions or comments.)
Before we call the next witness, I would like everyone to know that we have approximately 28 people who have signed up to testify, so I have a proposal to make. (Laughter.) 140 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28
We can time each person three minutes, and if you can't say it in three minutes, it's not worth saying. And everybody will be repetitious, I'm sure. Or you can talk among yourselves and perhaps you would like one person to speak on behalf of several of you. So it's your choice to make.
All of you are here -- many of you have been here for all of these hearings. We do appreciate that you come out and offer your support. And we certainly do not want to limit your comments, but unless I am completely off base, I don't know what else could be added to the 141 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 testimony today that has not already been put on record during the last three hearings we've had in addition to the several hearings we had a year or two ago. And, again, with the utmost respect, if you could figure out a way in which we can do it and not have, as the Council President said, 28 individuals coming up --
All right. I would ask Mr. McPherson, then, to call the first witness.
Not everyone is here. First of all, I don't think everyone is here. MR. McPHERSON: Ed Kerlin.
Not here. 142 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 MR. McPHERSON: Dave Schernecke. (Witness comes forward.) MR. McPHERSON: Mary Reinhart can come to the table and Bernice Hamel. (Witnesses come forward.)
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak with you. My name is David Schernecke. I'm a lifelong resident of Queen Village in South Philadelphia, and I oppose the construction of the Foxwoods project at Delaware and Reed. I am a sixth-generation family member in Queen Village, and I say that with both pride and also with a heavy heart, because I feel that if Foxwoods would be built there that it would -- I would really seriously 143 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 consider moving out of the City and out of my neighborhood. I've also heard a lot of testimony here today about revenues and revenues, but I feel like I'm preaching to the choir right now, but we haven't heard anything about costs, both direct costs and indirect costs. In addition, you know, finally I'd just like to say -- I mean, we're -- the statement that I feel that government both from the State, the Governor, and the City is making to us by putting casinos on our waterfront, is saying we -- are we that intellectually and creatively challenged that we cannot do to our waterfront what Baltimore has done to their waterfront, what New York City has done to their waterfront, what San Francisco has done to their waterfront, what cities like San Antonio has done to their waterfront. So we just say we give up, 144 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 let's just put casinos down there and let them, you know, average the $22,000-a-year jobs that the Hotel Association gentleman spoke about earlier. Thank you for the opportunity.
-- Mr. DiCicco, Mr. Greenlee. I'm here to make a simple plea to you: Don't do this. Don't give this casino permission to build where it wants to be. I live in Pennsport, and that's the area that Foxwoods' greedy investors and owners plan to exploit 145 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 to make ludicrous profits. They're lead by a raging, insulting governor who seems to be presiding over an oligarchy as opposed to a democratic government. Don't join their pillage, don't give them their CED. We're depending upon you, and you have shown that you're worthy of our trust. You know that my neighbors and I have struggled for years to prevent Foxwoods from building in our fine neighborhood, and we will do anything ethically and legally to keep them out. We have marched in demonstrations, we have written to everybody -- the newspapers, the state government, the Gaming Board, the Mayor, the Governor, and to you. We've posted signs, we've collected thousands of petition signatures in the freezing cold. We voted against casino proponents, we lobbied in Harrisburg, and we have testified here 146 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 before you over and over and over again. And lots of us have big collections of T-shirts, you know, expressing our points of view, but we're wearing them proudly. And why are we doing this? Because this casino will devastate our way of life. Foxwoods' fancy drawings don't show the real story. They don't show the radiating waves of neighborhood blight: 24/7 flashing, blinking, exploding neon lights, drunken drivers weaving through our tiny streets near kids in school uniforms. They don't show slowed ambulances and firetrucks, overwhelmed police, distressed parents who don't have jobs lucrative enough to pay the bills, greedy politicians at the trough. Those drawings don't show drivers trapped in miles of traffic, 147 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 their cars spewing exhaust into the summer skies. They don't show more and more foreclosures, suicides, untreated gambling addicts, muggings, armed robberies, local parks made dangerous by soaring crime rates. (Timer bell rings.)
They don't show distraught owners and employees of cannibalized local businesses and an I-95 ramp tearing through our beautiful houses and through our hearts. My simple plea is: Don't do this. Don't give them their CED.
Good evening. Please identify yourself for the record.
Madam Chair, I am Bernice Hamel, a resident of Society Hill and Vice President of the Society 148 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Hill Civic Association. Democracy will be the big loser if casinos arrive in the City of Brotherly Love and the State of Pennsylvania. This insult first began in July 2004, when the Pennsylvania state legislature voted to allow stand-alone gaming families to be built throughout the State, two of which to be sited in Philadelphia, without any input from citizens, denying we the people our right to vote on this controversial subject. Following that unpublicized and shocking decision in December 2006, the seven unelected members of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board issued gaming licenses and selected the two worst possible casino sites to be built in Philadelphia out of the five casino wannabes under consideration, Foxwoods and SugarHouse. These two gaming facilities 149 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 would be located only two or three miles from each other along the Delaware waterfront. Worse yet, Foxwoods would be built within about a mile-and-a-half's distance from Independence Hall, the birthplace of our democracy and a national shrine. How's that for irony. Both casinos would be located adjacent to or near the City's most thriving residential neighborhoods. For example, Society Hill is one of America's most historical communities, drawing visitors from across the nation and around the world who marvel at its unique mix of old and new. But for we the people, this is home, where our kids go to school, and where our diverse group of residents attend religious services of all kinds side by side and often in houses of worship that date back to the 1700s. The selection of these two casino sites was made with absolutely 150 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 no input from residents of our communities. It was a done deal. Adding insult to injury is that these casinos were permitted to choose the locations that they wanted instead of the other way around. It's a wonder that they didn't demand a site close to the Liberty Bell. More recently, and most disturbingly, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court removed whatever oversight our city would have had on casino development when it awarded Foxwoods the zoning permit and approvals, which City Council had withheld for almost a year. This recent ruling came four months after the court issued a similar decision in favor of SugarHouse. We must continue to fight for what is right, and so I especially want to give credit to our councilman, Frank DiCicco; our mayor, Michael Nutter; and all of City Council, who 151 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 are willing to listen to the voices of the people and who value our democratic system, such as it is. I also thank all neighbors and friends who are testifying today and working on behalf of helping to bring back democracy to our city and our state. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: Our next witnesses are Norma Van Dyke --
She's submitting written testimony instead. MR. McPHERSON: -- and Dianne Mayer, Jeff Rush, Renee Goodwin. (Witnesses come forward.)
Hi. My name is Dianne Mayer. Thank you for the opportunity to participate here today. Hopefully Council can arrange for more meetings in the evening or the weekends so working professionals can attend. I appreciate it. I've been involved with the 152 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 issue of re-siting the casinos since December 2006. It's been an uphill battle and continues to be so, but it's also been educational to see how our government works and doesn't work. Council's willingness to listen and respond to citizens' concerns, study the impact of the location of the casinos, and ask the questions that should have been asked in the first place is commendable. I moved to Philadelphia 14 years ago and I enjoy living here, and 15 I believe that our neighborhoods are 16 treasures to the City. Philadelphia 17 has a unique character, and it's a 18 great place to live, with the 19 potential to be even better. 20 I have concerns following. 21 Building casinos at the current sites will have a negative impact on the quality of life, including increased crime, a major issue for the City, plus loss to the local economy. 153 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Increased traffic congestion will make living here a nightmare. The cost to the City will be much greater than the benefits, and the Philadelphia taxpayers will be burdened with these costs. By building two casinos, each larger than the King of Prussia Mall, we will squander the opportunity to develop our waterfront, using the best practices learned from other cities. Philadelphia's threatened with losing its authority to act in decision- making and the creation of sustainable communities. I am concerned. I'm concerned we will lose the very qualities of why I chose to live here. Philadelphia should not be forced to accept anything less than what a world-class city can offer. I want to thank you for your efforts and your leadership to help continue the fight to re-site the 154 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 casinos to responsible locations. Thank you.
Are you going to read Norma Van Dyke's testimony?
I have written testimony from Norma, and here's mine. (Ms. Goodwin distributes T-shirts.)
And here's a small something or other for members of the Rules Committee, and there's a medium there for Madam President.
Is this an ethics violation? Will we have a problem here or what? (Laughter.)
The word "illusion," according to Webster's 155 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Dictionary, is derived from a Latin word, "mocking"; from "illudere," as in "ludicrous"; the perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misrepresentation of its actual nature, as in "hallucination." So let us look at some facts pertaining to Foxwoods. There will be no negative impact in the surrounding community as a result of this project, only benefits. The limited number of generally low-paying jobs will create financial soundness for the families who work there. We will provide public-safety services such as EMT to persons within our perimeter because people who leave our property won't need services outside our property; and, oh, if they do, it ain't on us. We will provide $1 million to the community in CBA, community 156 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 benefits, also known as "disaster relief funds" even though it will cost the City approximately $17 million in startup costs to hire, train, equip, and house officers in casino sites. There will be no impact at all from the additional use of water and sewer, even though the surrounding communities as far west as Broad Street have been facing backup problem due to woefully inadequate, antiquated systems. We'll dump our waste water in the Delaware, but it's good for the fish and the other native habitat. There will be no increase in addictions such as drugs, gambling and alcoholism because gambling's a family activity. The people of this city and country don't need to come to an attractive waterfront when they can come to a slot barn. Our project will generate 157 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 X-amount of dollars, except if we don't build it at all, it might generate a little less. But don't worry, we'll figure it out. The 6 or 9 million patrons coming to our place won't create an added burden to the already-crumbling I-95; and if it does, we have a connection with the maker of Crazy Glue. People will leave with more money than they came with. The 42 percent that we will so magnanimously give to organizations will make us appear saintly, even if it is merely a way of preserving family wealth. Everything is not funny. The vision created by Ed Bacon to create a livable downtown will be greatly enhanced by this project. This will be good for the City's future and finances. And, last of all, the lives of 158 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 everyone who lives in nearby communities will be improved when we come to town. Now, there's another interesting word; the word is "delusion." It's defined as a persistent, false, psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary. Ladies and gentlemen, I say that Foxwoods at this site being a good thing is a delusion. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, 159 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Madam President, Councilman DiCicco, and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Jeff Rush. I'm president of the Queen Village Association and a charter member of the Philadelphia Neighborhoods Alliance. For the umpteenth time over the last year-and-a-half, I am on the other side of this table. Together, we've explored pros and cons of siting casinos on our riverfront. Our own Councilman DiCicco has kept this issue on the front burner, and you all have sat patiently, listened, and have voted consistently and often unanimously to support our concerns. In the shadow of the heavy hand of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Mayor Nutter asked you to continue these hearings. In fact, the Mayor, at the last hearing, weighed in himself and expressed the strongest possible concern for the unwarranted interference of the court on a city of 160 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 the first class and the likely detrimental impacts that the casinos' poorly conceived mitigation plans would unleash on our neighborhoods. The Mayor also noted that Foxwoods, as currently planned, could not possibly generate a reasonable return to the City or the State to justify building it on the waterfront. For this forbearance and, may I add, proper due diligence and on behalf of all those who oppose the current sitings, I would like to express our extreme gratitude. Because of your support and despite the court's obvious desire to sweep aside all of our objections and concerns, we do not believe that casinos on the waterfront are a done deal. As we have often expressed, we are not anti-casino, but we support re-siting as the most equitable, logical, and the quickest way to break 161 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 this impasse. Now, you heard testimony earlier from our state representatives talking about a bill which would revisit the issue of the sitings and also sweep away the ten-mile limit. Therefore, we are asking you, members of City Council, and Mayor Nutter to continue this process by convening a re-siting committee already authorized by an earlier Council vote. (Applause.)
While unresolved issues continue to play out in the courts, this committee could consider safer alternative locations for the proposed casinos. This action will send a message to the media and the casino operators, investors, and the trades that Council will not be bullied by the court, nor will it abdicate its responsibility to its citizens by accepting poor sitings at inappropriate locations. 162 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 This whole process has taught us much. The previous City administration was quite willing to support plans that were shortsighted and inadequate. Council was not. And our new administration has taken a deep breath and asked for a pause. Let us use the time left to us to find better locations and resolve this issue in the only way we all wind up winners. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. We just would like Foxwoods to know we're not anti-gambling, and if they haven't heard us, look at our shirts.
Thank you so much. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: Will the 163 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 following please come to the table: William Kosman, Debbie King, Susan Patrone. William Kosman, Debbie King, Susan Patrone.
I'm going to pass. MR. McPHERSON: Oh, you pass? I'm sorry. Patty Griffin? (Witnesses come forward.) MR. McPHERSON: Kathleen O'Neill.
Good evening, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is William Kosman. I am a resident of Queen Village, and I can promise you that my comments will be about 30 seconds.
My wife and I 164 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 moved to Queen Village seven years ago, and we absolutely love living in Queen Village. It's a Philadelphia style of life where, on nice evenings, we stand or sit in front of our homes, we talk to our neighbors, we watch children play, we can stroll the streets of our neighborhood. Queen Village is actually the oldest neighborhood in the City. There are restaurants tucked away in interesting places. It's a very wonderful place. I am a painter and I paint scenes of the City, and what you have in front of you is a scene of the City.
That picture is Fourth and Bainbridge. And I would like to see our way of life retained. I would like this painting and the other paintings 165 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 that I make of our city to be what is actually existing and not an historic relic of what used to exist in Philadelphia and has been, unfortunately, lost to a casinos on our waterfront. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak. I would also like to thank the Council for their efforts to re-site the Foxwoods and SugarHouse casinos at the airport. I think that is a better solution. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
I know that you all have been very, very patient, and I appreciate it. I think it's wonderful that you have come back time and time again to express your views, and I know that you've been here before. I know you've been here before, and I think it's wonderful. Again, I would ask you to please abide by the three-minute 166 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 limit. Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good evening, and thank you, members of City Council for giving us the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Patty Griffin and, like many other here tonight, I am, by choice, a lifelong resident of Pennsport. I live on the 200 block of Wharton Street with my husband, Bob Biels (sp?) and our two children, and we live less than three blocks from the proposed Foxwoods site. I'm here tonight not to discuss the overtly negative impact Foxwoods will have on my neighborhood; I'll leave that to everyone else. Instead, I'd like to share with you what I believe is a story of censorship and strong-arm tactics by Foxwoods Casino and their partner company, the public relations firm that represents them. 167 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 In November 2007, I was hired as a consultant by Tierney Communications, Foxwoods' PR firm, as a consultant for a project they were working on with the Lincoln Financial Group. My four-week assignment called for me to work with Tierney's Lincoln Financial team. And at the end of that assignment, citing my work with the team and the client's satisfaction with my results, I was offered an associate vice president position with the agency. During the job offer, I thought it was appropriate at that time to let the agency know that I was opposed to the placement of the Foxwoods Casino at Delaware and Reed Streets. I was very explicit during the conversation, explaining that my active opposition had taken many forms, from letter-writing and petition-signing, to attendance at meetings and protests, and that I had 168 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 every intention to continue that. I also explained to the agency that if they wanted to reconsider its offer, I understood. I was told that what I did on own time was my business. We worked out the details of the offer. On Friday, December 14th, I accepted position, with a start-date of January 2nd. On Sunday, December 23rd, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a letter to the editor that I had written in response to a casino-related article 16 that had appeared in the paper the week before. As approved by me, the newspaper ran my name with the letter; Tierney Communications was not mentioned. On January 2nd, my first day at Tierney, I was called into the office of the public relations general manager, where he, along with the H.R. representative, demanded that I agree 169 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 to cease and desist all of my activities related to Foxwoods and the casino re-siting. I was told that in order to remain an employee, I would no longer be allowed to attend my monthly civic association meetings, I would not be allowed to hang a sign in my window, I would not be allowed to petition my elected officials. In effect, I must cut all ties with anything related to re-siting activities. I was told: "We're not telling you that you have to embrace the idea of Foxwoods coming into your neighborhood; we're just saying that you can't espouse your opinion against it." I could not, and would not, agree to these new terms of employment, and on Friday, January 4th, I was fired. Is what happened to me illegal? Probably not. Was it 170 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 unethical? Absolutely. I am telling the story not because I believe I suffered any great injury; in fact, my consulting practice is stronger than it's ever been. But this story smacks of an infringement of individual rights. It's an issue of censorship, and it gives us a very good glimpse into how Foxwoods and its partners do business. Foxwoods, through its PR firm, Tierney Communications, has talked about its plans to come into our community and how it will be a good neighbor to us. I was forced to decide between keeping a good, challenging, well-paying job and keeping my mouth shut on an issue that will have an enormous impact on the future of my family and my community. What kind of a neighbor forces you to make that decision. Thank you.
Thank 171 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 you. (Applause.)
My name is Kathleen O'Neill. I live in Pennsport, three blocks from the proposed Foxwoods site. My husband and I have two young girls, ages 5 and 9. I will speak on some of the issues families with young children are facing in Pennsport concerning the proposed casino. In order to keep a neighborhood vibrant, you need young people. In Pennsport, we have many people who have lived in the neighborhood for generations and would like to stay in the neighborhood and raise their children. We also have many families who are somewhat new to Pennsport. They've been moving to Pennsport over the past ten years because they're priced out of other neighborhoods. Whether relatively new to Pennsport or lifelong residents, 172 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 families with young children want the same for their kids: a safe and agreeable place to live. A casino will not make our neighborhood safer or enhance it in any way. Casinos will bring traffic, air pollution, drunk drivers, and crime. As to traffic, not only will the neighborhoods along the river suffer from the traffic heading to the casinos, but it will also suffer from the traffic seeking to avoid the casinos. Already due to the big-box stores built on Delaware Avenue, Pennsport has seen great increases in traffic. Delaware Avenue, Front, and Second Streets all suffer from this. More cars on our streets makes it unsafe for our children and will cause great inconvenience. Can you imagine having a gigantic casino complex in between your home and your neighborhood grocery store? Casino traffic will bring air 173 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 pollution. To my knowledge, neither Foxwoods nor the Commonwealth have addressed this issue. Thousands of additional cars, trucks and buses passing through and backed up in and around our neighborhoods will worsen the air quality. Asthma is epidemic among our urban children. Children, because of their body size and developing lungs, are the most vulnerable. Smog, soot, and diesel exhaust worsen asthma and trigger attacks. The children of Pennsport deserve better. We all know that casinos serve free drinks and that many patrons drive impaired. We also know that casinos frequently attract a criminal element. Please don't bring this to a residential neighborhood. For those of you who think that I-95 is some type of barrier between our neighborhood and the Foxwoods site, you're seriously 174 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 mistaken. I-95 is raised in our neighborhood. The residents of Pennsport actually use the space under 95 for recreational purposes. There's an ice-skating rink, a street-hock rink, and a basketball court between Washington Avenue and Wharton Street, just two blocks from the Foxwoods site. A rec center, which operates a summer camp, is under 95. The Mummers practice there. And every spring, a makeshift skate park opens for the kinds under 95. So 95 provides no barrier between us and them. I ask the powers that will ultimately site these casinos to take into consideration the vitality of the neighborhoods saddled with a casino. Is that where you would choose to live and raise your kids, in the shadow of a casino? Families in Pennsport already 175 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 face some fairly harsh realities. Our schools are failing, our streets are dirty, and we have some crime. Yet there's reasons we all want to stay in the City: family, culture, jobs, diversity, convenience. I believe a casino will tip the scales for many young families and push them to leave the neighborhood. And without young people, our neighborhoods will cease to thrive.
Mr. McPherson, please call the next three witnesses. MR. McPHERSON: Walter Zimolong, Frank Guarnaccia, Sharon Johnson, Suzanne Haney. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good evening. Kindly please identify yourself for the record and proceed 176 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 with your testimony.
Yes. Good evening, Madam President and fellow members of Council. My name is Wally Zimolong. I am an attorney that works in Center City Philadelphia. I am also a resident of Bella Vista. I am also the Republican candidate for State Representative in the 182nd Legislative District. But I'm here as something more important: I'm here as someone that represents the future of Philadelphia. I am here because I am like many young people that moved to the City and want to make this city the next great city. I'm not going to rehash some of the horror stories and concerns that people have over casinos. I'm here to urge you to do something. It's simple: Get it right. The real reason we are here today and that we are in the situation we are in is not because the General 177 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Assembly passed the Gaming Act, it's not because the Supreme Court told Council to zone a certain way, it's not because of a development plan. It's because this city lacked a cogent urban planning. Lack of urban planning gave the casinos the land on which to develop, and that is what is important here. What is important here is this Council understands that we must now prevent the next casino from coming in. I'm really not that bright of a guy, but I know two things: Number one, the only thing that goes next to a casino is another casino. And, number two, politicians can't help themselves; if you give 'em too much of a good thing, they're going to go back. And if the casinos spew off tax revenue, they're going to go back and put more casinos in because they can't help themselves when they find something that gives 178 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 off revenue. So you can bet donuts to dollars that if an amendment to the Gaming Act came up in the General Assembly, a representative from, say, Carbon County -- not that I have anything against Carbon County -- he or she would probably vote to amend the Gaming Act to allow more casinos in Philadelphia if it meant increased revenues for our commonwealth to go back to --
-- Carbon County. Thank you. So that's what it's about. (Timer bell rings.)
So I urge you, in conclusion, get it right. Think this through, don't rush it like the Gaming Act was passed through, and fix what is wrong, the lack of an urban plan. 179 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Thank you.
I'm Sharon Johnson, a Center City resident. Moved here about 30 years ago, so I have seen what has happened in Philadelphia since I came here, back in the '70s. And I just came back from St. Louis, so I'll be very brief. Went to the arch there. We stayed in an R.V. park; we have a motor home. Stayed in an R.V. park at a casino right across from downtown St. Louis. We went into the city, looked at the arch, and then went to a tourist area that was touted in many of the guides as a good place for restaurants and shops, an entertaining place to go. And we passed empty 180 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 storefront after empty storefront. There is one casino on the waterfront, on the eastern side of the Mississippi in Illinois, one on the western side, and a brand-new one that just is built now away from waterfront. And I talked to one of the guards there at the arch, and he said that the city had put so much money into new shops, restaurants, area shopping malls and that they were not doing at all well. And I attribute it to the casinos. The casinos were full and the city streets were empty. Thank you
Good evening. I am very happy to be here and, as some of you may remember, this is not my first visit. That shouldn't count in the minutes. I am Suzanne L. Haney. I am 181 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 the founder of the Southwark Historic District, and I am an elected ward leader in Philadelphia, the second ward, Republican. Much of what you have as my testimony has been given previously. However, I'd like to let you know about the attachments that are in the packets that I'm giving. 1. The testimony summary. 2. Two CDs of some of the historical sights that are in Queen Village and Pennsport. 3. The Preservation Alliance article that was written about the work I did to save the archaeological dig, the bodies that were found on Washington Avenue, because the City gave permission in three hours to the Historical Commission to cover those bodies and not give them an honorable interment. We arranged to have them interred at Laurel Hill Cemetery, with religious services and a military 182 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 honor guard. 4. I have for you a very scarce and wonderful map, 1681, of Philadelphia that includes all of the riverfronts, including the submerged islands and also the various water areas that are no longer above the water line in Philadelphia. What is found in those is the first site that was ever given to the U.S. government, which you know about from previous testimony, which is now under water and needs to be protected. I am also including articles about the O.V. Catto Society and program. Here is the testimony: Philadelphia's waterfront is Pennsylvania's and America's history. This is the historic impact of the casinos on the historic waterfront of Philadelphia. You have on CD number one and also in your picture packets number 19 to 25, Old Swedes Church. 183 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Here's the map which someone may want to give around to people. You will see that south of South Street, in 1681, is the Swedish colony that was part of Weccacoe. Weccacoe, which means "raccoon" in Swedish has never really been archaeologically dug. There has never been adequate historical work done in this area. (Timer bell rings.)
It also includes among our waterfront, of course, the site for William Penn's treaty with the Native-American Indians, which, because of the artifacts, is now getting a lot of excellent coverage. It also includes the colonial epicenter of our nation's independence. Among the sites within the one-mile radius of the site at Foxwoods is the Independence National Monument; the Shot Tower; the U.S. Federal Navy Yard, which doesn't even 184 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 have a historical marker, which is where the U.S. Constitution sailed from throughout the war and where it continued up through the 1800s to work off of the United States coast in Africa as an anti-slaver. It also includes on CD number and also the pictures that you have for number 2, photograph number 3, and 5, which include a house in the 100 block of Federal Street that has the same green granite fireplace that is in Independence Hall, which was the State Building. And why does it have the same green granite? Because it was built by the same architect from the same quarry. It was the home of Benedict Arnold's father-in-law, who was Henry Shippen, who was a Supreme Court justice of the United States.
Okay. I'm going 185 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 very quickly. I'm almost finished.
The post 1793 yellow fever cemeteries, not Mickva Israel, but St. Joseph's. It includes Underground Railway and abolition sites along the water, which, after the Christiana riots, people could no longer be brought from south on the train; they were brought through the Underground Railway along the water and off-loaded. There are buildings where I have given tours of Underground Railway South Philadelphia, where there is no adequate work that has ever been done, and they include both Pennsport and Queen Village. The Civil War. You have Union and the Cooper refreshment saloons and hospitals. You have Jefferson Square Park. And you have the foundry where 186 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 the first ocean-going vessel in the western hemisphere was located. All of these CDs and much of this information has been sent to the Mayor, to the Governor, and to the Casino Control Commission. In conclusion, the Pennsylvania legislature and government gave unlimited power to a poorly-regulated board to destroy, with impunity, not only our community but, most importantly, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and our nation's historic legacy and history. It is unconscionable for City Council and the legislature not to rectify this egregious situation and to restore and protect Philadelphia's patrony of the nation to which we live so close and to save this for future generations. There is still time. We and all Americans count on you to so do. It is your obligation to our nation. 187 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Thank you.
Our next witnesses? MR. McPHERSON: Will the next witnesses please come to the table: Dave Rizzio, Hal Schirmer, John Coachey. (Witnesses come forward.) MR. McPHERSON: Ed Gross, Rosanna Chiappetta, Al Brown, Wayne Rachman. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good evening. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Hal Schirmer. I'm an attorney and amateur historian. I have actually not testified on this aspect before. I was previously before the board a couple 188 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 of years ago with regard to public access to the Schuylkill River for the Schuylkill River Trail, with Race Street and Locust Street. I'm actually coming before the board now also, as I'm the guy who found out and pointed out that there was a British fort under the SugarHouse site. I want to give you a quick background on the Foxwoods site. At approximately the same time 1777, 1778, when Philadelphia fell to the British, the British came back and reoccupied a place called The Association Battery, which was built by Ben Franklin. It was later know as The Reed Street Battery. The British built a gun battery roughly at this site. The Americans objected to this, sent six war ships up and started shelling South Philadelphia and trying to knock out the British battery. This site is actually a 189 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Revolutionary War battlefield. One of the more interesting points is not just the battlefield, but the issue about where is the property line? I remember the Chair had mentioned that riparian rights don't make sense. The best explanation of riparian rights was probably done by Milton Berle, who once said: "I have great news. They found land on my property in Florida." When you have a piece of riverfront, you don't own it unless there's actually land there; that's the big problem. We hear about a bulkhead line, a pierhead line. We never hear about a property line because nobody's sure where it is, and it seems that the property line is well far back, meaning that there is no real property there. What we have are these riparian lands. The riparian lands 190 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 are basically the sidewalk of the river. They are public lands. This has gone back and forth with the Supreme Court and the Commonwealth Court. And actually, when the City of Philadelphia was laying out the Manayunk Canal, it was pointed out that there's a bulkhead. That destroys the natural river bank. You can't get land by adding to it, you can't snip land away from the City of Philadelphia or the State of Pennsylvania. It belongs to the people. The bigger question is: What should be done with these public lands now that people are actually beginning to realize that they are public lands? We already have a beautiful promenade along the Schuylkill River, both sides. We have similar rights in this piece of property. Why are we looking at a piece of property which belongs to the public and simply 191 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 looking at it as a way of generating income short-term right now by selling it off? All of these issues deal with leases and licenses because these are not real pieces of property. This is the same way as if you park in front of -- if you have a parking space or if you have a license to put in a lunch cart or if you're one of the little vans parked along 30th Street. This is a piece of, basically, public property. The river is essentially a public road. And we're talking about allowing people to use public property, public land for private purposes. And without getting into the whole issue of who owns what, somewhere in this area is the old river bank, somewhere in the area is the portion of land that William Penn dedicated as the top common. (Timer bell rings.) 192 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28
These common areas need to be preserved; they're not being preserved. It's something that we need to consider at this point and look at what's happening to the public's land, the land that belongs to not just the citizens of Philadelphia but the citizens of Pennsylvania. Thank you.
Good evening, Honorable Members of City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here. I am Rosanna Chiappetta, an employee of a financial institution with a significant presence in the greater Philadelphia region. I can tell you that one of the 193 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 greatest impediments to recruiting and retaining town employees in the City is the overbearing wage tax. Philadelphians are saddled with one of the highest tax burdens in the region, yet most citizens simply don't perceive an acceptable return of quality services for their comparatively high investments. Mayor Nutter promises to change that perception, and the hopes of countless Philadelphians and I are pinned on him doing so. There's additional help on the way, and that's from the leadership of Governor Ed Rendell and the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Philadelphia stands to gain hundreds of millions of dollars from casino proceeds to use in reducing our wage tax. If we want these benefits, you must end the delays and move forward with the construction of the Foxwoods Casino in Philadelphia. 194 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Foxwoods Casino is expected to generate over $1 billion in gaming revenues within the first five years of operation, funding wage-tax reductions for all who live and work within the City of Philadelphia. The City will also reap over $15 billion [sic] annually in host fees, including $5 million that will be directed to benefit the Philadelphia public school system. The entire project, both directly and indirectly, is expected to create substantial jobs here in Philadelphia and in the State of Pennsylvania. The benefit of these projects goes beyond the jobs and wage-tax relief that they will create. By adding decent-paying jobs and potentially lowering our unemployment rate, we could see a positive impact on the crime rates here that we experience in Philadelphia. 195 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 As you know, the safest-ranked cities are more likely to have lower unemployment rates. Eight out of the top ten most dangerous cities, largest cities, Philadelphia being the sixth largest in the country, have unemployment rates that were higher than the national average of 5.1 percent in 2005. In 2005, Philadelphia's unemployment level was ranked the fourth-highest in America. Now, Councilpersons, you can see that there's an article that's published in the Associated Press in 2005 ranking Philadelphia as the fourth-worst dangerous city, and you can find in the article the safest and most dangerous cities. Philadelphia has historically, since the 1970s, had the highest unemployment rate within a five-county area, including Bucks County, Delaware County, Montgomery County, and Chester County, with the highest crime rate. 196 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 (Timer bell rings.)
Additional tax relief and job creation won't last without the revenue from these casinos, so I urge our elected officials to come together and get these projects started immediately. If you fail to cut taxes, specifically the wage tax, while maintaining the existing inadequate services, people will continue to move out or our city because they can quickly increase their salary by moving away from the wage tax while enjoying an area with less crime. Jobs follow people, people follow the jobs. The wage-tax relief and job creation provided by the casinos in Philadelphia will help us on both of these fronts. 197 4/30/08 - RULES - 080027, 28 Thank you for your time.