- We have to burn down the school to save it? The really nice school?
- Hey Ben: Questions about tax amnesty
- US Rep. John Murtha, June 17, 1932 – February 8, 2010
- Getting Real Answers from Gubernatorial Candidates
- It is always a good thing when our government works well
- Courtfighter: Delaware County Judge Maureen Fitzpatrick A Bigot? You Judge How Often Bigotry Occurs In Media, PA
- We'll Get You Ready for State Budget Release Tuesday
- ONE Praises U.S. Treasury Announcement to Work with International Partners to Relieve Haiti’s Debt
- A giant toxic monster is coming your way OR no rigs before regs!
- We Need Immigration Reform Now! Why Stu Bykofsky got it wrong.
That Sweet City Council!
Submitted by Dan U-A on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 1:08pm.
This is painfully embarrassing. Today, City Council approved the Zoning for Foxwoods. And yet, as Helen has noted, Foxwoods has no money to build this thing. They have no plans to look at. They haven't been approved by the Gaming Control Board to move. They don't even have an agreement with the other tenant of the building.
But yet, away we go:
That comes, even though Foxwoods doesn't have a lease to open in the former store and has not asked the state Gaming Control Board to approve its relocation from a South Philly location. And a dispute between the two companies that control the former department store has not been settled.
"That's an issue that the two parties have to deal with," DiCicco said of the dispute just before the start of Council's session. "I'm not going to be a player in that issue."
That's a change from one month ago, when zoning to convert the former store to a Commercial Entertainment District was approved by a Council committee. DiCicco warned on May 13 that the zoning would not go forward for a final vote until the outstanding issues were settled. The Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust, which wants to lease the store to Foxwoods, has not settled a dispute with Gramercy Capital Corp., which controls the building's upper floors.
Even if you are pro-slot parlor in Chinatown, which the majority of people are not, how can anyone be happy that Council approves something this big in the middle of the City, without even seeing so much as a sketch?
What am I not getting here?
This can't seriously mean that they can build a casino without being subjected to further review of their building plan - to assure that it conforms with zoning laws. It can't seriously mean that. Right?
I mean they'll have to submit plans for review prior to starting to build. Right?
Yes. They have to (1) get
Yes. They have to (1) get approval from the Gaming Board to move their license; and (2) have a plan of design approved by the City Planning Commission.
In short, Foxwoods cannot start building tomorrow or from what I can tell anytime soon if they ever build in the Market East site (remember, Delaware and Reed is still their legal site and the place they will return to if Market East does not work out).
Um, No
Probably not to City Council.
Council does not want to pass a budget that involves dealing with a bunch of very thorny issues, like property taxes based on corrupt and arbitrary assessments from the BRT,or biz taxes or wage taxes opposed by the mayor and a good number of the business community and young professionals the city wants sorely to attract and hold onto, or totally challenging the uniformity clause in court.
So they are telegraphing Harrisburg, "We are done. We totally abdicate any notion of planning or critical self-governance when it comes to casinos. Whatever you and the Gaming Board wants goes. Tell us what you want and you got it. Just give us our sales taxes, OK?" And they will continue to do so until Harrisburg passes that sales tax. Some may continue after that.
I believe its called "passing the buck".
Gaetano I am sure is right about how the process works from here on out with the Planning commission but I think the message Council intending to send to Harrisburg is "Don't even think for a second that we are whats delaying this." The first, last and only question is "will it help us get the sales tax plan passed" at this point.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Put another way
Council is currently much more afraid of angry older homewoners (who vote more than most other types of people) then they are of gambling addiction, or bad decisions coming from the gaming board, or the chance that they might screwing up the city in some permanent way by allowing a casino downtown. In fact they are so afraid of property taxes' political cost that they are willing to preemptively sign-off on any chance they might have to maneuver that downtown casino in a way to ameliorate its impact on the surrounding area. Better to hand it off.
As a unit they aren't big on political courage.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
A favorite comment
from the Philly.com article:
Why can't YPP get commenters like that?
Gaetano's right about the
Gaetano's right about the process - but it's important to clarify that the casino plan of development (POD) had to be approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Until now, that is, because Council passed legislation amending casino zoning to remove the provision that mandates Council approval for any casino POD.
Given the power of the state, and given the fact that the building at 8th and Market is of course already standing and can't be significantly altered (it's an historic landmark), there's not much for the Planning Commission to do when it does come up. In that sense, the legalization of Foxwoods' zoning at 8th and Market is pretty much the whole ballgame, at least at the City level.
That just leaves the financial markets, and the Gaming Board (the latter of which is in effect just code for "Governor Rendell" of course).
2 questions
Note I ask both of these questions even though I oppose the idea of gambling on principle, no matter where casinos are built.
1) Since when is Market St. considered Chinatown? Just adjacent to Chinatown, certainly, but Chinatown proper?
2) If I'm correct, the former Strawbridge + Clothier building is currently empty. Is an empty building better than a casino? If not, has anyone posed any serious attempts to use the site for something else?
-Z
2 answers from my perspective
I'm sure others are different.
1. Yeah that block or block and a half depending on how you look at it are such a tremendous distance that clearly no Chinatown resident need be concerned about any impact - it might as well be in Delaware. Sorry to be sarcastic but if you accept the idea that people in residential neighborhoods should have some input in how major planning changes (like say a large 24-7 casino offering free booze and busloads of visitors daily) a literal stone's throw from their neighborhood, this argument strikes me as bizarrely semantic. Its closer to a 1/3 of Chinatown residents than that 1/3 of Chinatown is to its farthest 1/3. Its close enough to be considered for all intents and purposes adjacent.
2. No, rather obviously it is not empty since currently (as the story linked to above actually mentioned) current tenants in the office space on the upper floors currently object to sharing the space with the casino. That was the significance of the DiCicco quote above. As the district councilperson with "councilmatic perogative" the rest of council in large part deferred to him on zoning. Until recently he had previously said he would hold off passing zoning approval until PREIT and Foxwoods at the very least got the parties with condo-like ownership claims to other floors in the building to agree to the proposed usage downstairs. Now he says thats a an issue between private parties and he won't get involved. Basically Foxwoods will have to pony up enough cash to make owners of the office floors (being used among other things as state offices currently I believe) be willing to put up with the negative impact on the rentability of their office space. Or more likely enough cash to give the owners of the office space an incentive to outright sell.
In other words, while the casino will likely put currently vacant lower formerly retail floors to use, it will likely cause the currently occupied upstairs office space to become undesirable to the point of being un-rentable and PREIT/Foxwoods have not yet even put enough money on the table to match whatever the price it will take to keep the upstairs owners from suing. They will soon however, if they can borrow it. Maybe they can convert the unused office space into hotel rooms, I don't know. The surrounding neighborhood will likely be losing a smaller number of current wage-tax-paying, lunch-buying office workers in exchange for much larger number of gamblers including some unknown number of deeply troubled gambling addicts (as well as of course some new wage-tax paying casino workers).
If you accept the casino will have a negative impact on quality of life in surrounding residential areas because, say for example, slot machines historically appeal to working class gambling addicts and there is a historical problem with gambling addiction in some Asian communities - or just because of a manifold number of other side impacts from living next to a 24-7 "casino enteratinment district", this argument strikes me as on par with "hey at least that guy running the shooting gallery across the street is paying his property taxes and not leaving the house vacant".
There may be some validity to the argument that this location is the one the city believes it can lead the casino to to make sure the percentage folks dropping quarters in the slot machines includes the highest percentage of non-Philly resident conventioneers. The argument that because the retail space is not currently rented the only thing we can put there is a casino, however, strikes me as patently absurd.
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
The argument that because
The argument that because the retail space is not currently rented the only thing we can put there is a casino, however, strikes me as patently absurd.
Note that I did not make this argument. What I asked was whether or not an empty building- several floors of it, at least- was better than a casino. And, if not a casino, then what else is itching to locate in the former S+C building?
-Z
I've heard the argument made
that PREIT has intentionally mismanaged the Gallery to drive its influence on how the Gallery can be expanded and expand its influence on the entire retail/commercial corridor at various points well prior to gambling entering as an option. I don't know if I buy that argument personally but its been made on several occassions.
I've also heard the argument that the complicated structure of how the Gallery is managed between the city and PREIT negatively effects PREIT's ability to adapt to non-gaming retail trends, which in turn depresses the whole retail corridor.
In other words, the casino is at best a non-sequiter to underlying issues for The Gallery/Market East.
I have personally argued many times that the key to increasing the vitality of the Market East shopping corridor is to encourage more permanent residential above future retail development. Part of what ails the Gallery and the retail corridor in terms of attracting an economically varied and robust client base is how transitory its current customer base is - basically commuters rushing through to grab a train and bored urban teens that come in on the subway, more to flirt and kill time than to dine and shop. You can support a "better" mix of retail and restaurants if you have more full time residential "regulars" just upstairs or across the street.
I personally suspect the casino is a move away from the chance of the corridor building up a customer base of local residential "regulars".
Regardless, there are lots of ways to imagine attracting new and more varied retail downtown other than a casino. It still kind of sounds like you are saying its some sort of "either or" - like its a casino or there's no other way anyone would ever find a reason to spend money at 8th and Market and that seems like a bogus dichotomy.
Its one thing to argue that 8th and Market has some certain benefits compared with the waterfront (closer to public transpo, closer to Convention Center) but I think its totally bogus to say that if the gaming law had never been passed that they could never ever conceivably find a ground floor tenant for that building. I also tend to think its flawed logic to assume the casino will help improve Market East retail. I think over the long term, thats not necessarily the case. Maybe, independent robust retail development on Market East can hope to help "drown out" the Casino, but frankly its way, way oversold as corridor builder by itself. Has the racino in Chester turned around Chester's once long ago thriving downtown shopping district or is the rest of Chester basically the same?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
A quick look @ Atlantic City
A quick look @ Atlantic City will reveal that gambling, far from reviving the city as a whole, has helped the boardwalk @ a few blocks inland. Beyond that, the casinos have done precious little to help the city.
Casinos, just like lotteries, are nothing more than regressive taxes on the poor. Hence my opposition to putting them *anywhere,* not simply in my neighborhood.
-Z
I've looked at Atlantic City
When I look at Atlantic City, I don't see that the casinos have helped even the Boardwalk or a few blocks inland. On the beach block there are vacant parcels.
I don't see any restaurants that are not inside a casino. In fact, in the five years after casinos were built, the number of independent restaurants decreased dramatically -- this is the economic cannibalization effect. Yes, after 30 years there is finally a retail district (all those outlet stores). Thirty years!
Walk down Atlantic Avenue and show me one bit of economic development.
few things
From the beginning a major problem was that the impacts of proposed casinos were seen as primarily local by many pundits, commentators, and of course community groups. This was one of the first challenges we faced in 2006 and one of the major reasons we created Casino-Free Philadelphia. The impact on immediate neighbors and neighborhoods will of course be enormours but the negative impacts are city-wide and regional and are a mix of economic, public health, environment, political, law enforcement, etc. These are unique developments that require unique approaches.
That no one on Council was willing to challenge DiCicco's councilmatic perogative demonstrates the damage of small-mindedness and the culture of corruption that permeates our City Hall.
DiCicco went even more parochial by playing one part of his district off of others-putting South Philly ahead of his constituents in Northern Liberties, Fishtown, Chinatown and other downtown neighborhoods. His concern for neighborhoods is bogus and closely matched by his lack of concern for the riverfront, which is in the sorry state it is in due to his and his mentor's corruption over the past two to three decades. Our city and its people will continue to pay for the failures of Council which has no idea about how to realize the value of the city's greatest untapped physical resource-the Delaware Riverfront. The City Council voted as one in support of both casinos yesterday so they are all responsible not just the corrupt City Councilman in the First District.
Yesterday, the Council supported unlimitted off-site surface parking lots for the proposed Sugarhouse casino one mile north and south of Frankford Avenue as long as the parking lots enter and empty onto Delaware Ave/Columbus Blvd. So, just with one casino on the riverfront we are looking at the casino bringing casino-related uses to 2 of the 7 miles of the Delaware Riverfront. This parking is exempt from the bold vision that citizens pushed for, as is of course the casino which is now a complete joke-a big box slots parlor on 26 acres of parking.
And, the City has already agreed to turn-over the 11 acre city-owned site that sits on the riverfront at Spring Garden Street to the casino. This site, which is publicly owned, is a natural for a well-designed park, which would connect the Art Museum to the Riverfront in the beginning of what could be the emerald necklace o Philadelphia. Instead we are going to have an asphalt chain with the north of Ben Frankline Bridge riverfront being transformed from green, underutilized and heavily speculated potential to an environmental disaster dominated by auto-oriented uses.
The Mayor next Wednesday night will celebrate the creation of a sliver park at Pier 11. It is great to turn Pier 11, which is a very small parcel just to the south of Ben Franklin Bridge into open-space but there is an 11 acre, city-owned parcel that they are giving away to Sugarhouse casino for satellite parking. Citizens organize for three years and get a sliver park, while the casino makes back-room deals for a much larger and more valuable piece of land. This is a joke.
It is clear that when we look at how the City and City Council are dealing with planning issues that politics, back-room deals and corruption continue to dominate the approach. This is very far from what we fought, for and what was promised. Thankfully, it is far from over and the battle against casinos is increasingly seen as a city-wide (and national) issue by those that matter-the citizens.
By comparison, what our City planning should look like:
Please note the mention of surface parking lots:
In Boston, they're transforming surface parking lots into vibrant, urban, waterfront space. In Philly, we're building new surface parking lots along the waterfront. The Philadelphia City Council should be embarrassed - but unfortunately, I suspect that they aren't. Where is the Master Plan process for Philly?
D.E. II - there is a Master
D.E. II - there is a Master Planning process for the Central Delaware Waterfront, and it will start soon after the interim Zoning Overlay is passed next week. The problem - as usual - is that the casinos are exempt from all of this. So while the Overlay prohibits surface parking on Delaware Ave/Columbus Blvd/riverfront parcels, a separate bill passed yesterday (referenced by Jethro) trumps that.
Now, what people should (IMHO) really be pissed about is what Jethro mentioned - there is exactly one piece of sizable, developable, publicly controlled land on the entire 7-mile stretch of the Central Delaware, and it's the 11 acre parcel at Delaware and Spring Garden. This is the parcel SugarHouse wants to use for their "temporary" remote parking. Given their timeline - and their lack of financing - such a move could potentially preclude the transformation of that parcel for public use, for a period of many years. It's a terrible idea, and folks need to speak out and mobilize against it.
Even if one grants that SugarHouse should go on the waterfront (which I don't) and that they should be permitted remote parking (which I don't), there's no reason they should be allowed to (a) use public land for it, and (b) use it for free or very cheaply.
It's the salt of corporate welfare poured into the wound of our appalling casino process.
Matt
Matt - Do youi have any links re: the Master Planning?
Have they started publicizing the process and organizing stakeholder participation?
Rendell's final sub-urban scars on the city
Blame the low self-esteem Philly decades of the 1980s-1990s, but consider blaming our old mayor, who never could get past a tarted-up sellout strip mall idea of what the Delaware could be.
As governor he's done everything he could to make it so.
Check out Pulitzer-nominated Inga Saffron on how a city with taste plans a riverfront.
The problem isn't with Planning Director Alan Greenberger's eye but the cards in his hand, as dealt by a state and city government lacking vision.
While you're at it, check out Saffron on how that same lack of vision inherited from past administrations may turn the South Street Bridge project into an anonymous pile of PennDOT concrete.
A big box/parking lot melange on William Penn's and Ben Franklin's waterfront?
A PennDOT anybridge connecting University of Pennsylvania to Center City?
When will people learn?
"City of Neighborhoods" was always a nice way of saying "Your downtown sucks."
Cities plan.
Cities execute bold -- and, yes, expensive -- architecture in their industrial commercial centers that communicates their style and vision to the world and is, yes, built as much for the world as for their residents.
Cities function in society as centers of both industry and art (and, yes, culture!) -- so they have to have style, or they stop functioning as cities.
When will people learn?
We. Are. NOT. The. Suburbs.