1 2 3 MR. DOUGHERTY: Good morning. How's 4 the sound this morning? A little better than 5 yesterday? 6 This isn't bad. This is about the 7 same amount of people who usually go to Sacred 8 Heart mass this time. 9 Just a little rehash on yesterday on 10 the symposium. 11 I want to thank -- I notice a few 12 people are back today -- I want to thank 13 everyone that showed up. This was a -- and 14 because I was asked a couple questions earlier 15 this morning I'm going to just take a second. 16 And my understanding, there's somewhere in the 17 vicinity of 150,000 fliers given out over -- a 18 total around 600,000 pieces -- advertising 19 this symposium through three or four 20 neighborhoods over a period of a week or so. 21 Even though I yesterday basically 22 kept this apolitical, the Senate bill 862 is 23 what drove the emphasis to get more input on 24 what was happening on the water front. 25 Now, today we have a decent amount 2 2 of not only neighborhood people but 3 representatives from the I.L.A. here. And 4 it's funny, you would never -- if you talked 5 to some of the people who attended yesterday's 6 seminar, they had no idea, okay, some being 7 new Philly residents that are part of the 8 3,000 condos in Marie Lederer's legislative 9 district or some of the Old City/Queens 10 Village/Society Hill area who doesn't have the 11 same lineage or family lines in the I.L.A. 12 that people like myself and State 13 Representative Keller, having had a 14 grandfather and a father both put food on the 15 table via the port, it was real interesting 16 and absolutely proved that this was needed. 17 Because we took no time because, 18 again, we went, I think we went so far out of 19 our way to not have any political overtures 20 that we might have did ourselves a little bit 21 of a disservice by not touching a little bit 22 on that bill. 23 You know, that bill has drawn the 24 ire of a lot of people because it's worth, as 25 some people said, the greatest economic 3 2 windfall in this area on any one piece of 3 development other than the stadiums in years. 4 But what it does, we're not worried about who 5 owns the land, who owns the distributorships 6 on these deals, we were concerned about how it 7 affects the neighborhood. And the bill itself 8 takes out almost all neighborhood input. 9 And what happens is, for example, 10 you know, we just had a smoking ban, so now in 11 our conversation with some people from the 12 hospitality industry they say, Hey, it's tough 13 enough to compete with new hospitality 14 businesses such as casinos, people who have 15 done business with casinos in the past, they 16 say because they have a habit of early on in 17 their tenure of giving away food and beer. 18 And now you have an opportunity to smoke. So 19 it hurts the people along the line, the For 20 Pete Sake's, who transcend a whole lot of 21 neighborhoods on Front Street. Okay, so that 22 was one concern, smoking. 23 Then you talk about how 24 neighborhoods have been fighting with the help 25 of groups like SCRUB, okay, over a period of 4 2 years, billboards, and how it gives Delaware 3 Avenue unlimited access. And these were some 4 of the concerns that were raised. 5 Then it talks about the fact that 6 they would be free from, not only fees, but 7 any oversight of the city when it comes to 8 water and sewage. We had a series of people 9 that live -- it just happens that I'm here not 10 as a labor leader, not as anyone that has 11 political ambition, as a head of Pennsport 12 Civic Association, where I average about 30 13 calls or 30 visits a week, either between 14 myself or Bernadette Mason, about basement 15 flooding. 16 It's no longer about water in the 17 basement, it's about a health issue. Okay. 18 It's about an infrastructure issue or concerns 19 of infrastructure. Your house isn't supposed 20 to handle 12 to 13 inches of dirty backed up 21 sewer water like Mike O'Donnell has 22 experienced on the 100 block of Mifflin 23 Street. Which is in the center of Pennsport, 24 is one of the more prominent blocks we have in 25 the sense that long term families, almost 5 2 every house has a multi-family -- multi-person 3 family in it, and most are fairly newly 4 renovated. Over an 18-month period I think he 5 said he had six floods of 12 to 14 inches of 6 water. That's a health issue. 7 Okay. So that's a little bit more 8 than just the Senate bill. There's no spot in 9 the Senate bill that explains about the fact 10 that there'll be no oversight. And it doesn't 11 have like a little asterisk that says, See 12 Mike O'Donnell for future information. 13 So that's why we're here. This was 14 put together because we had three legislators 15 who initially had supported gaming. Now, 16 everyone has a different view, but I'm not 17 going to speak for them, they can speak for 18 themselves. But I think they more than 19 adequately represented their district and 20 their concerns and the changing neighborhoods 21 which are in their district. 22 For example, the things that -- and 23 I bumped State Representative Keller during 24 the process yesterday because when he was 25 talking about $150 million dollars of state 6 2 money coming into the Food Produce Center, 3 most people in the labor movement say, Well, 4 I'm going to build it, most Teamsters work in 5 there, so it's, oh, it has to work. 6 Okay, well, the way that it was 7 positioned -- again, without fitting into any 8 plans here, two things happened. Yesterday it 9 was understood that they're going to put a 10 road in the middle of it, it's going to be 11 taxpayer money, and the way the road is 12 positioned it will probably hurt future 13 development of the long shore unit. 14 In the process, it also talked about 15 dumping most of the traffic onto Delaware 16 Avenue. Okay, we're talking 400 trucks per 17 morning was the number that was given to us in 18 some of preparation information. Okay, so 19 they're the type of issues that were discussed 20 yesterday morning. 21 And then we talk about the actual 22 gaming institutions. And again, I've told you 23 I've been on record wearing my other hat -- 24 and I didn't talk about my other hat yesterday 25 at all. I have been on the record saying, 7 2 Hey, I'm for gaming under the right conditions 3 and the right locales. I have supported all 4 type of development on the water front. But 5 you get to a point where when neighborhoods 6 are legislated out of the process, where the 7 development is once in a lifetime development 8 and you're being steamrolled over. 9 Because we had the authorities from 10 the state who told us they were given just a 11 folder about what it looked like as well as 12 traffic studies and infrastructure of the 13 casinos. We had the Streets Department 14 basically state the same thing. Basically, 15 the understanding we had that there's been 16 just a complementary sort of cavalier, you 17 know, communication process between the city. 18 So who are we, the neighbors, supposed to go 19 to? 20 So that's why we decided to have a 21 Delaware River 2015 Symposium. And the 2015 22 isn't just about the casinos. It's about, we 23 have people in the room, that as State 24 Representative Keller talked about, industry 25 and future development of the port and the 8 2 need to over -- the need to expand the port 3 because of the people knocking the door down. 4 And we have people from the Delaware Valley 5 Planning Commission giving you all the cargo 6 reports on the screen and projections and all 7 that stuff. I mean, that's -- a lot of people 8 were just looking in the air. You want to 9 hear, Where's the green space? And where is 10 our access to the water front? 11 And on the other side, okay, even 12 deeper down you're starting, you're starting 13 to just -- people just want to know the 14 infrastructure off of I-95, they don't want 15 Schuylkill South. And when I asked the TIP 16 program, the Transformation Information Plan, 17 they have a 12, 15 and 30-year study, Reed 18 Street is not on that. Reed Street is the 19 access and egress that all four prospective 20 casinos on the water front have used as their 21 main outlet for transportation, for vehicle 22 transportation. It's not even on the study. 23 And when we talked about, you know, 24 they're whispering in the ear, if we do 25 something on Girard Avenue we'll have a 9 2 temporary offramp. But I think we cleared 3 that up yesterday, there's no temporary 4 offramp even on the plan or nobody discussed 5 it. 6 So these were -- I think it was a 7 very interesting day. I wanted to come out 8 here early today and say, Hey, look, this has 9 purely been, you know, and the word "good 10 government" is thrown around too frequently it 11 becomes more of an adjective for political 12 campaigns. Okay. I mean, this is something 13 that has been very good because you've had so 14 many people with different interests that 15 realize that we have to work together. 16 And today we're going to jump 17 into -- we have the Planning Commission here, 18 we have one of the City Solicitor's lawyers 19 whose been involved with the gaming 20 application. And also two of them have been 21 working on the Mayor's executive order on his 22 vision for the plan for the water front. 23 And one of my concerns was, I was 24 very happy that the neighborhoods were all 25 included, but I was a little frustrated that 10 2 there was nobody from the labor community 3 included. Because there's a ton of jobs. 4 And, you know, I know the Mayor and 5 the local councilman had this structured that 6 way to have community input. And we also know 7 that there's a year left to the Mayor's term 8 and that there's also council elections within 9 a year. So as much as we're being apolitical 10 here, we also have to identify the fact that 11 everybody might not be. 12 So just when we walk in here the 13 last thing I want is this not to be a 14 productive -- you know, and it's already, from 15 my opinion, it's already a much more 16 productive symposium than I even expected. 17 Okay. On a Saturday night I had five to seven 18 calls either in reference to about what 19 occurred, how come they weren't included or 20 what's happening tomorrow. It was a beautiful 21 Saturday, okay, so it was a beautiful 22 Saturday. 23 With that, I'd like to just go 24 across the table. We have a couple -- we have 25 a new addition to our front today, another one 11 2 of our community activists. 3 And the way we'll handle this is 4 we'll go through -- let me read what we handed 5 out there, we'll read through -- we have Dave 6 Knapton here from City Planning and he's got a 7 few -- he has one or two associates with him. 8 We'll talk a little bit about that. We're 9 going to talk about development on the water 10 front. 11 I get the bad news to tell you, Carl 12 Primavera, who is pretty active on behalf 13 of -- he's representing community groups and 14 large development, his dad passed away last 15 night. So keep his family in your prayers. 16 And he'll be represented today here by Ron 17 Patterson, who is his protege. 18 And then this afternoon we're going 19 to talk about a couple -- 20 MR. KNAPTON: We're teasing. 21 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: He's his 22 equal, not his protege. 23 MR. GREENBERG: Carl would say he's 24 a protege, Ron would say -- 25 MR. DOUGHERTY: And then this 12 2 afternoon we'll wrap it up with gaming. 3 Remember, we will take a look at -- 4 we will take a look at every question and if 5 we feel up here that people either submitted 6 it after the fact, that it wasn't a thorough 7 answer, because we are going to have 8 documents, we are going to have information 9 and facts of what occurred here, will be 10 available at the Pennsport office in a couple 11 days. Bernadette asked me to give her a 12 couple days to get the stuff together. 13 Any questions you have, any other 14 concerns you have, anything you think you 15 needed, any reports that you were shown 16 yesterday or slides that you think you would 17 like a peek at to compare them to either yours 18 or just to better educate yourself, feel free. 19 Significant pieces of paper that 20 were voluntarily given to us yesterday. You 21 know, just when you talk about the backed up 22 sewer, we did get a letter from the Free 23 Library, Whitman Branch which talked about how 24 they had to close because of the problem. So 25 it starts to interfere with just the way our 13 2 kids live too. 3 With that, I'll go to my right, 4 Marie Lederer. 5 REPRESENTATIVE LEDERER: Thank you. 6 And thank you for being here. 7 I had reservations about voting for 8 casinos. And Bill Keller sits next to me in 9 the House. And I felt very abused by the 11 10 mega nightclubs that donned Delaware Avenue 11 for about a mile and-a-half, 11 of them. And 12 a mega nightclub was a nightclub that held 13 between 1,500 and 3,000 people a night. And 14 the neighborhood was subjected to all kinds of 15 unsocialized behavior from these people. And 16 I was like a voice in the wind trying to 17 curtail some of the activities that went on 18 there. 19 So when the casino -- when I knew 20 the casino bill was going to be coming up I 21 sent out a newsletter with a poll. And my 22 then Chief of Staff, Mike O'Brien, headed it 23 for me. And I thought, you know, that I could 24 get a lesser percent of yeses than nos. I was 25 wrong. It came back 68 percent for casinos. 14 2 So that's what my people wanted and that's 3 what I voted for. 4 But I am concerned that it took us 5 ten years to get rid of those casinos and not 6 until we had four or five murders and 7 stabbings and all kinds of problems were we 8 able to one at the time close them down. If 9 these amendments go through on that bill we 10 won't be able to close them down. 11 So what happens with this bill is 12 extremely important. And I am very, very 13 happy that this symposium is taking place 14 because people have a right to know. And I 15 hope we can affect a change. Thank you. 16 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Good 17 morning, everybody. Thanks for being here and 18 again it's early on a weekend and you're 19 taking your time from your family to be here. 20 And as we said yesterday, we believe this is 21 an important issue. And guess what, after 22 yesterday there's no doubt left. 23 First, I'd like to thank Pennsport 24 and Whitman for coming up with this idea and 25 approaching us with it. Usually you hear that 15 2 we're going to have the meeting, we'll get 3 together, absolutely we say yes, we'll get 4 together. This is probably the best run, 5 outside of the legislative hearings, 6 neighborhood-run function that I've ever been 7 associated with. And yesterday I think, 8 again, reiterated what we were here and what 9 we were trying to accomplish here. 10 Yesterday we learned that basically 11 there is no plan. We started out yesterday -- 12 I started out yesterday by saying if we do 13 this the right way, we slow down and take our 14 time, we could develop this water front the 15 way it has to be developed. There's room 16 along the water front for the residential 17 condo development that's going on. There'll 18 be room for the commercial development. And 19 more than ever we need to sit down and protect 20 the port industrial. 21 That is why, that is why the city of 22 Philadelphia is here. 200 years ago, 300 23 years ago when they settled here it was 24 because of the river and that's why 25 Philadelphia is here. It's still that 16 2 important, we have to take that into 3 consideration. 4 We learned yesterday that there 5 was -- there's plans on the board now that 6 will absolutely be detrimental. And that's 7 one of the things we have learned that not 8 many people know about. We've decided, 9 Representative Taylor and Lederer and myself, 10 that we're going to send a -- and 11 Representative Taylor is rehashing it right 12 now -- we're going to send a letter to the 13 Secretary of Transportation, Tad Dechert. We 14 need more answers before we move forward, 15 before we just, as we say and as I've been 16 saying the whole weekend, try to jam a square 17 peg in a round hole. To me that looks like 18 what's going on here. 19 We're going to go back tomorrow and 20 go to our colleagues and go to our prospective 21 caucuses and go to our respective leaders in 22 the House and say that this Bill 862 as it 23 stands has to be slowed down so we can take a 24 look at it or it has to be changed. It's 25 going to be impossible for us to vote for the 17 2 bill the way it is now. It is detrimental, 3 not only to the water front but to the 4 neighborhoods associated with the water front. 5 So I would again like to thank 6 Whitman and Pennsport and all the other 7 neighborhood groups that participated in this. 8 This turned out much better, I believe, than 9 anybody expected. And I guess we're going to 10 have to have more of these since this is so 11 successful. So once again, thanks for your 12 participation and I think we'll have another 13 good day today. Thank you. 14 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Thank you, 15 Bill. Good morning, everyone. I am 16 Representative John Taylor, I represent the 17 community just north of here. And I am also 18 Chairman of the House Urban Affairs Committee, 19 and have been so for quite a few years. 20 One of the challenges of a Committee 21 Chairman is to prepare your committee members 22 and the entire House when any piece of 23 legislation or groups of legislation comes 24 before us. And one of our challenges is to 25 get the proper people in front of us to inform 18 2 us and to organize that. And that's very, 3 very difficult and a big challenge for our 4 staff. 5 But what we -- with John Dougherty, 6 he really has been able to put together here 7 with the folks we had to listen to yesterday 8 and today is incredible. And I, like many of 9 you, really didn't look forward to working my 10 entire weekend. However, I was very excited 11 about what we learned yesterday and couldn't 12 wait to get here this morning. 13 While it was alarming about what we 14 heard from PennDOT and the Delaware Valley 15 Regional Planning Commission and the Streets 16 Department about having absolutely no plan in 17 place, no adjustments are on the board, they 18 are behind on the projects they're ready to 19 build now, and the fact that there has been 20 very little, if any, discussion or formal 21 discussion was something that we certainly can 22 use I think, is a good reason why we need to 23 slow everything down. 24 And as alarming as that was, and 25 what was even more alarming was what the Water 19 2 Department and DEP had to say afterwards. We 3 think that the traffic planning is poor, wait 4 until you get into the water and sewer 5 problem. So we were very fortunate to have 6 that information. 7 As Bill was saying, we're all 8 playing around with the letter right now to 9 the Chairman of the Gaming Control Commission 10 as well as PennDOT. 11 I had a discussion on the way up 12 with Ed Goppelt from Hallwatch about, Don't 13 you wish you had done this earlier? And then 14 he says, Well, I guess this is how sometimes 15 this process works. And it's certainly how 16 the legislative process works, unfortunately. 17 Everything comes into a funnel and happens 18 real quick at the end. It's almost a military 19 type of model. 20 But as a result of this and some 21 other discussions we've had with community 22 leaders we are fully engaged and fully 23 prepared for this week to take 862, certainly 24 hold it up like we did last week, open it up 25 for amendments and try to put some common 20 2 sense provisions and take away the absolute 3 greed and arrogance of the casinos that was 4 put in this version of 862. And I'm confident 5 we're going to do that. 6 And I think not only are we going to 7 do that, we're going to go way further than 8 that. If they can legislate absolute details 9 and run over a community, we're going to try 10 to legislate details that give them some 11 rights right in the state legislation. So 12 that would be our challenge this week. But 13 our two days here have certainly helped us 14 prepare for that. 15 MR. LEVINS: Good morning, everyone. 16 My name is Rich Levins and I serve as a 17 volunteer as President and Chairman of the 18 Board of New Kensington Community Development 19 Corporation. 20 As many of you may know, New 21 Kensington CDC is involved in various 22 initiatives. We are involved in zoning, we 23 clean and maintain lots and brown fields. We 24 build moderate income housing and recently one 25 of the things we're most proud of is we were 21 2 able to get historic tax credits where we took 3 a five-story abandoned factory in East 4 Kensington and renovated it and we won the 5 prestigious Historic Preservation Award. 6 My hope that in this symposium and 7 other initiatives is that, I'm sure most of 8 you have visited Old City at one time, visited 9 the Schuylkill River water front or visited 10 the Parkway and at one point said to 11 yourselves, Wow, these people who put this 12 together, planned this, these visionaries 13 really did it right. And my hope is that in 14 2015 or 2020 that, you know, people who visit 15 the water front will have the same reaction 16 and say, Wow, the people involved in this, the 17 leadership at that time really did it right. 18 And I know there's no such thing as 19 perfection, but ultimately I hope that the 20 water front -- and I recognize it will not 21 just be recreation, it will be residential, it 22 will need to be commercial as Representative 23 Keller said, but a perfect blend of all three 24 I think is the ultimate goal that all of us 25 will be satisfied with. 22 2 MR. SHALLCROSS: Thank you, Rich. 3 I'm Herb Shallcross, President of 4 the Fishtown Neighbor Association. We 5 facilitate communications between the 6 neighbors in our area and city agencies such 7 as the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 8 Everyone -- well, I have known for 9 25 years that the expectation was that 10 Fishtown would be gentrified, it would be 11 developed. The obvious potential of plans 12 east of Delaware Avenue, east of I-95 and 13 Fishtown has been obvious for 25 years. Now, 14 that development logjam is broken. The 25 15 years people could have been spending to lay 16 the underpinnings for that development have 17 been wasted. There's really no comprehensive 18 plan for anything there. 19 We're here to talk about 20 infrastructure. You heard from people from 21 the Water Department. I'm not an engineer, 22 it's not really my area, but if you look at 23 the telephone, the electric power, cable, 24 television service in Fishtown, it's almost 25 all on poles above ground. For 40 years 23 2 communities have been getting away from that. 3 And, you know, the opportunity to do that has 4 been wasted. 5 Now, it's very exciting that we come 6 here. We have to get on top of this. It's a 7 clean slate. And everyone let the dollar be 8 made inscripted on your corner of that clean 9 piece of paper. Because no one's laying out, 10 though, any overall design or picture, and 11 that has to take place now. 12 MR. RUBEN: Hi, my name is Matt 13 Ruben, I'm with the Northern Liberties 14 Neighborhood Association. I'm also a 15 co-convener of the North Delaware Casino Unity 16 Coalition which consists of a large number of 17 civic groups up and down the river, represent 18 and serve approximately 200,000 taxpayers. 19 And we are part of a movement that's happening 20 along the river and elsewhere in the city 21 recently to increase the attention on 22 planning. 23 We have initiated our own 24 neighborhood plan that we completed last year. 25 We've initiated an addendum covering the water 24 2 front in our neck of the woods. And other 3 civic associations, including New Kensington 4 CDC, are also undertaking their own planning 5 initiatives because there has been a really 6 palling vacuum not really in the will to do 7 plans in this city, although that's part of 8 it, and really no political will to implement 9 them and make them have teeth. 10 There is a Planning Commission plan 11 for the river front. It's, I believe, 24 12 years old so it's out of date at this point. 13 But it was done. And have been other visions 14 articulated by public and private entities in 15 intervening years, but there's been no 16 political will to coordinate these and get 17 them done. 18 And I think we're as, and others 19 have said, I think we're really at a place 20 where we need to get those things implemented, 21 not only to do plans right, but we also just 22 need to do them. And I hope that meetings 23 like this can be a spur to break the apathy 24 that has prevented us from getting things done 25 for our river front. 25 2 And I don't know if it's fitting or 3 not that the, apparently the casinos who were 4 supposed to be represented here this afternoon 5 have pulled out, because any plan that's going 6 to happen for the river front is going to have 7 to happen around casinos. Because I can't 8 imagine a worse planning idea than putting big 9 boxes with no windows on a river. 10 So I think we're facing real 11 challenges of planning around what's already 12 on the river and what's already planned for 13 the river. But I still think that there are 14 opportunities remaining for us to preserve a 15 lot of what we need to preserve about the 16 river and make it a truly mixed use and 17 publicly open area. 18 MR. DOUGHERTY: Thank you. 19 What we'll do is, again, just if 20 you're comfortable with it, we will treat this 21 as if it's a round table and we're just having 22 cross talk. Just raise your hand. And, 23 again, if you're comfortable, identify your 24 name, purely for the stenographer, so we know 25 who said what. 26 2 What I'd like to do is start off 3 with City Planning. And I know that Kevin 4 Greenberg, who is the Law Department's 5 representative on the gaming and water front 6 development process, he's on a little bit of a 7 time frame here. 8 So Dave, I'd like to start off with 9 just asking you, earlier this week the Mayor 10 outlined a plan for the Delaware River Front, 11 Penn Praxis is the lead group here, could you 12 just explain the role here of the Planning 13 Commission in that process and what your 14 understanding of what occurred this week? 15 MR. KNAPTON: Very briefly, and I'll 16 pass this on to Kevin, who is with me here. 17 My name is David Knapton. Is this 18 going to be too loud? Am I booming you out? 19 MR. DOUGHERTY: Not at all. 20 MR. KNAPTON: The Mayor's executive 21 order, which Kevin will describe, enumerates a 22 set of tasks, the leadership of the Executive 23 Director of the City Planning Commission, to 24 study the water front and come up with 25 recommendations. And there are all sorts of a 27 2 deadlines, the drop dead date in 2009. 3 This is important, not the date, but 4 the action. The comprehensive water front 5 plan. Matt Ruben mentioned a 24 year ago set 6 of studies which are still good documents of 7 the entire water front from Poquessing Creek 8 all the way around the Delaware and up the 9 Schuylkill up to Flatrock Dam and past there 10 to River Road in the northwest. These were 11 done with state money to study water front 12 assets and so on. This was done in the early 13 eighties, 1980 to 1984. 14 And those documents, good as they 15 were, separate the city into separate 16 districts. And the unintentional result of 17 that is that people tend to think about one 18 section, another section and not relate them. 19 So for example, the Delaware water front is 20 North Delaware, Central River Front, South 21 Delaware, three different plans with, to my 22 mind, arbitrary boundaries between one section 23 and the next. 24 In the defense of the planners, I 25 was there at the time, you can say, well, you 28 2 can't do it all at once, you do have to have 3 some workable way to divvy things up. I'm 4 going to step back just for a moment before 5 passing this on to Kevin and talk about, 6 though, the impact of dividing things up. 7 The city was first designed and 8 founded by William Penn in 1683, not with an 9 ideal plan, a grid on totally clear ground. 10 And you all know the story, you have all heard 11 it in school, about the five squares and the 12 street grid and so on and so forth. This has 13 an impact on the water front because that's an 14 east-west orientation. It's an ideal plan in 15 which the water front is only part. 16 And I think we all know the reality 17 of the ideal, of the real side, is that from 18 the 1600s onward the city developed on the 19 water front, not in -- only incidentally in 20 William Penn's mind. So the places like Old 21 Swedes Church, which antedate William Penn, or 22 streets coming down to the river, Germantown 23 Avenue coming down or Poplar Street from the 24 north or Christian Street and Carpenter Street 25 in the south. All way antedate things like 29 2 Rittenhouse Square. 3 So that's the real side of 4 Philadelphia growth. And it grew along the 5 water front. And we've seen the same thing in 6 the present day where we've made -- the city 7 has made great plans for Penn's Landing and 8 decade after decade has revised the plans for 9 Penn's Landing, part of the William Penn grid 10 of Center City, not the whole harbor. 11 And in the meantime, with the 12 development of Christopher Columbus Boulevard 13 and the repaving, lots and lots of development 14 north and south of Penn's Landing, 15 irrespective of whatever the Planning 16 Commission has said in 1970 and 1980 and so 17 forth. 18 So I'm telling you this long story, 19 which you know, because it's important as a 20 way of thinking, well, how are we going to 21 deal with the new phenomenon of casinos as 22 well as low interest rates and tax abatements 23 taking such an incentive to develop anywhere 24 in the city and especially along the great 25 wide road such as Christopher Columbus 30 2 Boulevard. Anywhere from Port Richmond and 3 St. Ann's Church on Allegheny Avenue down to 4 the wharf, down to south, say, Oregon Avenue. 5 And that becomes, to my mind, a unitary kind 6 of district, not something to be separated out 7 as separate parcels. 8 This very important point for the 9 south water front and also for the north of 10 specialized port facilities in making sure 11 those are as modern as possible. But that, 12 given that mileage that I've just enunciated 13 from Lehigh to Oregon Avenue, it's clearly 14 mileage enough for everybody to play. 15 Okay, that's the background comment 16 I want to make. And I'll pass it on to Kevin. 17 MR. GREENBERG: Thank you, Dave. 18 Before I start I just want to 19 commend John and frankly all the 20 Representatives for spending their time and 21 their efforts to set this process up. 22 I've only been involved with 23 planning along the Delaware River for about a 24 year and-a-half now since I started working on 25 the gaming project for the city, Gaming Task 31 2 Force. And the amount of development in that 3 year-and-a-half has been astounding. The 4 growth and plans that are coming for the next 5 year-and-a-half is even more astounding. And 6 the need for this symposium, this type of 7 effort is manifest, which is a large part of 8 why the Mayor issued the executive order this 9 week that he did. 10 Throughout the process of gaming, 11 first in meetings convened by Councilman 12 DiCicco with Matt and Herb and Bernadette and 13 all the folks who were represented in this 14 room -- well, first we did it as a task force 15 ourselves, and then with councilmen went out 16 to the community groups to try to find out 17 what they were doing in terms of open 18 discussions with the casino applicants. And 19 that led to a sense of involvement on my part 20 when we hopefully roll this out with other 21 people as a certain Delaware order. 22 What the Mayor did this week -- and 23 I'll just touch on that briefly before I would 24 like to say a couple things to the 25 Representatives on 862 on behalf of the city 32 2 and on my own behalf as well. What he did 3 this week was to set forth a process where 4 we're going to get a comprehensive master plan 5 for the Delaware from Allegheny south to 6 Oregon. 7 The Mayor's vision on this is very 8 clear. And the reason we picked those 9 boundaries simply is because other plans, and 10 relatively recent plans, were placed above 11 Allegheny and then in between the port and 12 PIDC below Oregon. So our attempt is to try 13 to fill the gap in plans that have been done 14 this decade. 15 And the Mayor set forth a series of 16 reasons for him doing so and I'm just going to 17 touch on them real briefly. Excuse me if I 18 walk down them. 19 First, obviously, the New River City 20 Initiative is how we're talking about what's 21 happening on the water. But as we all know, 22 this is not only an issue of the city, but 23 something that's been driven by market forces 24 and we're working with them. 25 The 24-year city plan was developed 33 2 and the need for the new plan to include 3 residents, businesses and frankly the broader 4 public interest of folks who want to use the 5 water front to have access to open space, 6 whether you live one block from the river, as 7 many of you do, or 20 blocks, as I do, the 8 idea is that all folks in the city want to get 9 access to this beautiful river and use this 10 river front. And to include them with that, 11 the fact that we're going to have this 12 commercial development. And we need to do 13 that. 14 So what the Mayor set up was a 15 program that has two components -- three 16 components, the first of which is Penn Praxis, 17 a consultant for whom we have identified 18 probable funding. It's foundation type 19 funding, but it's not going to be done until 20 it's done with the foundation's support. But 21 the city is going to backsoft that as 22 necessary to do a plan, create a master plan 23 that will be directed by the other two 24 components of this, which are the Advisory 25 Group as a whole group, and then a Steering 34 2 Committee within that group. 3 And to those boards the Mayor 4 generally appointed the various stakeholders 5 who live here, but not the interest groups and 6 trade groups, be they business or labor, who 7 we expect will be forming this process 8 throughout. It is dominated by community 9 folks and community business associations and 10 local representatives with the Planning 11 Commission as the lead for both the Advisory 12 Group and the Steering Committee. 13 And within that Advisory Group there 14 is going to be a Steering Committee of nine 15 people. Only two of whom are representatives 16 of the City, Planning Director and the 17 Commerce Director. The other seven members 18 are going to come essentially from the 19 community. 20 We were told one of them is going to 21 be a District Council Member. There's going 22 to be one representative of the Business 23 District, be it Center City District, Head 24 House Square, South Street or Old City. One 25 representative from the Chamber of Commerce. 35 2 Three representatives from community 3 groups which we have designated the community 4 groups themselves get to select from amongst 5 their leaders, which the only thing the city 6 has asked is that you pick geographically 7 diverse representatives. Well, and we also 8 want folks who can give their time as 9 necessary. But our only requirement is that 10 within this area they pick geographically 11 diverse representatives. But we expect the 12 communities to pick their own folks. 13 Same things goes for the business 14 district, for that matter. One City Council 15 Member from the two District Council Members, 16 Councilman Clark, Councilman DiCicco, who 17 represent this area, notice to the Commerce 18 Director. 19 Those groups will do what they need 20 to do to meet, they will report and we have 21 said that every one of their meetings will be 22 open to the public, everyone. We want this to 23 be a full buy-in process that really speaks 24 for the neighborhood. 25 Because this plan, as Mr. Dougherty 36 2 indicated, is only as good as what -- the 3 Mayor has only got a year and-a-half left, 4 this plan is only as good as the plan is good. 5 If the plan is good it will live and it will 6 send and it will last well into the next 7 administration. And the next Mayor, whoever 8 it may be, will walk in and look at this plan 9 and say, This is a plan that I want my 10 Planning Commission to adopt, and it's a plan 11 that I want my Commerce Director to promote 12 and I want my neighborhoods and my Managing 13 Director and my neighborhood offices to 14 promote. And I want to make this plan real. 15 And that's our goal here, is to have 16 it be a plan of the neighborhood and of the 17 city's needs, be they commercial, be they 18 infrastructure or whatever. And that's sort 19 of where we're going on that. 20 The one problem we have with this 21 plan, frankly, in our process is that it's on 22 a time line that while we hope to have it done 23 in the next 12 months, that's not fast enough 24 for gaming because the state has dictated to 25 us what's happening and when. So towards that 37 2 end, the city is doing what we can to be ready 3 for gaming. 4 And frankly, I think we are doing 5 better than anybody else in the state has 6 done. We have a Commercial Entertainment 7 District Zoning Board now that lays it out 8 what we think needs to happen to make this 9 work for the communities. And it's a new 10 zoning bill that is specific to gaming. 11 We at the Philadelphia Gaming 12 Advisory Task Force which produced a 479-page 13 report, I was proud to be part of the process, 14 www.phila.gov/gamingadvisory, if you haven't 15 seen it, it's there. And it lays out exactly 16 the issues including the water and sewers, 17 including the traffic, that we knew the city 18 was going to face. We published that a year 19 ago this month and it's been out there. And 20 we would urge the Representatives to use that 21 as a club as necessary on 862 because we are 22 ready. 23 The Mayor did not support or oppose 24 gaming. He did not pick to have it come here. 25 That was done for us by the state. But he is 38 2 committed that if it comes, and it is coming, 3 that we are going to be ready to do it right. 4 And we're going to be able to do it right in a 5 way that works for our communities and our 6 neighborhoods. And that's our agenda here. 7 And that's what the Commercial 8 Entertainment bill does. And that's what 862 9 cuts right at the heart out. It targets 10 Philadelphia without justification and goes 11 right after us. And frankly, we don't quite 12 understand the reason. There doesn't seem to 13 be a good reason. 14 Because we are ready to make gaming 15 come in and make it work, we've established a 16 process that will allow gaming to happen fast 17 without the perennial ZBA hearing process. 18 We've created a forum for public input into 19 the plans. But once they're approved there 20 are not appeals. It's an as-of-right permit. 21 There's no ZBA appeal from that right. 22 Then there's -- you know, I don't 23 know if Mr. Dougherty went through the whole 24 list of things that are wrong with the bill, 25 I'm not going to do that here. But just to 39 2 say the city believes that this bill in its 3 current form, the preemption language, all of 4 the Philadelphia charting language is just 5 patently absurd or unacceptable. We are ready 6 to do it right. We are better ready than any 7 other community in the state. 8 Frankly, we're better ready than any 9 community that's ever not had gaming, but know 10 when it's coming. Nobody else has ever got a 11 report like we've used. That report's being 12 used as a textbook by gaming professionals in 13 Nevada this year. So we're ready for this and 14 we intend to do our part and we hope you can 15 sell your colleagues on that. 16 And with that, I'll turn it over to 17 Ron. 18 MR. DOUGHERTY: Ron, why don't you 19 just hold up and we're going to talk a little 20 bit more about development, if you don't mind. 21 We'd like to stay on the Planning Commission 22 the water front, the new initiative at Penn 23 Praxis. If we can hear some questions from 24 people in the audience, there's some questions 25 at the table. 40 2 MR. PATTERSON: John, I'll be able 3 to give you my view of how I think this 4 legislation will work and how it takes the 5 specific group and the community right out of 6 it. 7 MR. DOUGHERTY: Okay. And there's a 8 couple other later -- we have a list of 9 questions. People just want to -- you know, 10 people are here just to understand the process 11 too. You've represented community groups and 12 you've also represented large developers. So 13 you can explain how the process develops and 14 who's involved and, you know, the formulas, 15 the appeal process, the Commonwealth core 16 process, the whole nine yards. 17 On this, the Planning Commission, 18 just to follow-up to my initial question, what 19 exactly does the Planning Commission see its 20 role? Will you be lead position or just part 21 of a support team for Penn Praxis? 22 MR. KNAPTON: Well, the lead 23 partner -- 24 MR. DOUGHERTY: I'll call them P 25 squared from here on in. 41 2 MR. KNAPTON: The lead partner, the 3 executive director, will be the chairperson of 4 both the Steering Committee and the broader 5 Advisory Committee. 6 So in terms of the momentum, keeping 7 things moving, knowing deadlines, reminding 8 people of the importance of key topics, it's 9 fair to say that that person who is the lead 10 person will help to shape the way in which 11 everybody's opinions together are grouped and 12 expressed. 13 And also we're looking for a 14 deadline. So part of the lead position job is 15 simply going to be meet deadlines. Woody 16 Allen made a joke about that, but it's really 17 very serious about, you know, being there. 18 Absence is a loss, absence or meet failing 19 deadlines. I'm being very general because at 20 this point the tasks and the goals aren't out 21 there. So you can see why. 22 MR. GREENBERG: One of the key 23 components in how we set up this executive 24 order, that the Steering Committee gets to 25 steer and advise this process. And one of the 42 2 things now that we've announced this group on 3 Thursday is that fairly shortly, probably this 4 week, the Planning Commissioner will be 5 reaching out to the various groups to convene 6 them, allow the neighborhood groups to select 7 their own representatives to the Steering 8 Committees and how we get there. But the idea 9 is to let that group dictate the process 10 entirely. 11 We know this has to happen within 12 12 months. Praxis has a general work order but 13 they want to know specifics. And frankly, 14 they have been directed by the Mayor and they 15 will be directed by the folks who fund them to 16 follow the lead of this community-dominated 17 Advisory Group and Steering Committee. 18 And the reason we pick the Steering 19 Committee is you need a group of seven or nine 20 or 11 or whatever people, it's nine we picked 21 in this case, to manage day to day what's 22 going on. You've got lots of leaders who are 23 involved, but we want them to have a smaller 24 group they can go to with every little 25 question. And now we've got that group, or we 43 2 will have it once they're picked. 3 But the idea is to let that group 4 tell them what their little steps in the 5 process are. We told them they have to have 6 public hearings and you have to make public 7 input. Where you hold them, how you hold 8 them, frankly that's the kind of thing we want 9 the Steering Committee, which is going to be 10 community-dominated, to select. 11 MR. DOUGHERTY: In your opinion is 12 this something along the lines of the North 13 Delaware plan, the New River City plan? 14 MR. KNAPTON: I'll give two 15 examples, the North Delaware being one, in 16 which a plan for a long distance area starting 17 in Bridesburg and going up was reviewed by 18 technicians and reviewed by every community 19 group and elected officials. 20 The other example is an urban design 21 study on the Schuylkill River, not on the 22 Delaware, but fairly recently with the 23 underwriting of the Schuylkill River 24 Development Corporation. And that was a kind 25 of a visioning process of looking at our 44 2 Schuylkill from basically Bartram's Gardens to 3 the mouth of the Schuylkill. And allowing a 4 lot of people from a lot of different parts of 5 the community on either side of the Schuylkill 6 River to come and have input on what they 7 thought they wanted to see and what would be 8 the impact of what they asked for. 9 So that consultant then gave three 10 very broad pictures, three very broad 11 scenarios. I'm not going to go into detail on 12 that, that's not today's meeting. But the 13 point is, the mandate to that consultant and 14 the product that we got as an end result was 15 very useful. It was a reflection of public 16 sentiment and it turned that public sentiment 17 into, well, what are the costs for these 18 various options? 19 I think that's one of the kind of 20 products we can expect from the Penn Praxis 21 process. I think I can say that even without 22 having, you know, a document and working plans 23 and so forth in hand. 24 MR. GREENBERG: I would also add, 25 the seven of you are all members or your 45 2 associations can select members to serve on 3 this committee. So a lot of what the shade of 4 this committee is is going to be set by what 5 you want. 6 MR. DOUGHERTY: For example, the 7 North Delaware plan, they had a provision in 8 it, they were not-profit for land acquisition. 9 Do you foresee something like that coming out 10 of this? 11 MR. KNAPTON: Any number of kinds of 12 land acquisition might be entertained. For 13 example, we've used urban renewal process. 14 Now the state law has altered that very 15 recently. But for this purpose a lot of land 16 along the water front is already in black 17 certified areas so we can already use existing 18 ordinance for that. 19 MR. GREENBERG: I would also add 20 that Penn Praxis's work plan includes 21 implementation phase that they're going to 22 recommend. And given what we've all heard 23 over the last year along the water front, I 24 think it's safe to say that we all assume some 25 form of non-profit or some sort of other 46 2 entity or include the expansion of these 3 existing entities or some sort of structure 4 along those lines will be adopted. 5 But again, this is where we think 6 that there needs to be some entity, but the 7 exact shape and composition and how it's 8 developed needs to be created through this 9 process. And the hope is that guided by the 10 advisory group Penn Praxis will recommend 11 something that sometime in 2007 we can make 12 real. 13 MR. DOUGHERTY: State Representative 14 John Taylor. 15 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Thank you, 16 John. 17 Kev, and to you and the Mayor, good 18 luck with that process. We'll be glad to 19 participate. But good luck over 12 months. I 20 hope you don't get the same reaction as I got 21 and the District Councilman got on Thursday 22 when the very groups you're talking about 23 threw out the District Councilman out of the 24 meeting and tried to throw me out of the 25 meeting. So the open transparent process is 47 2 required, and we're doing something. But when 3 the community groups want to have their own 4 thing without any elected officials in the 5 room, it's pretty worse. 6 I'll just make another editorial 7 comment that you said that the city is well 8 prepared to have the ability to go ahead and 9 move forward with the Zoning Board of 10 Adjustments, et cetera. If they had that 11 power, let's hope that that would not be as 12 abused as it has been in the past. Let's hope 13 we don't have this crazy archaic system where 14 the District Councilman has total veto power 15 over anything that's done. 16 So there is a history in why at 17 least the legislature has decided to do that. 18 As I said in the last week based on the latest 19 arrogant bite that was taken out on 862, that, 20 you know, if I have a shot at giving you 21 zoning back, I will. However, it has to be 22 done the way it's supposed to be done, the way 23 it's laid out in the code and things and not 24 with these defacto processes that are used. 25 So all we're doing if we used the process that 48 2 we've always used, is take it out of the 3 Gaming Board and putting it in the hands of 4 one Councilman. 5 MR. GREENBERG: That, sir, is why 6 with Councilman DiCicco's help, in fact, we -- 7 the Gaming Task Force back last year when we 8 were looking at this issue, drafted a proposed 9 Commercial Entertainment District ordinance, 10 with the Planning and Law Department's help, 11 amongst others, that would create a specific 12 process for large scale entertainment 13 projects. 14 There really weren't -- you know, 15 I'm the president of a civic association, and 16 again, when some guy wants to build a fence a 17 little bit higher than it is, you don't want 18 to have all the Council involved, you need a 19 point person. 20 But this is not that. This is 21 something larger. And our process with this 22 was to put the Planning Commission in that 23 spot, the one who sort of makes the 24 recommendation and go directly to Council. 25 This bill, this Commercial 49 2 Entertainment District Ordinance, which became 3 law in March, is only targeting those large 4 scale developments. And through a process 5 that has community input, but at the front 6 end. 7 And frankly, I'm happy to give you 8 as much information as you want tomorrow, I'll 9 give you my card before I leave, call me, 10 we'll work with you so you have the 11 information about what we got in law here in 12 Philadelphia. 13 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Oh, I have 14 that. What I would like to ask all three, 15 actually, if Ron wants to chime in here, if 16 any of you have completely absorbed 862 in its 17 present form to explain to this panel the role 18 of the Commercial Development District or 19 Commercial Entertainment District, that it's 20 been sort of incorporated into the bill. Is 21 it? Isn't it? Is it? I know it's law in 22 Philadelphia. It sort of absorbed it into the 23 Gaming Commission process, but not really. 24 So I would like from a legal point 25 of view what you think the effect of that is 50 2 and how strictly it is under the current 3 version of that bill that the Gaming Board 4 would have to adhere to that or not adhere to 5 that. 6 MR. PATTERSON: I think the key -- 7 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Maybe just 8 for the audience go through that again, if you 9 would, about how that's a part of it. 10 MR. PATTERSON: Sure. I mean, I 11 don't know all the particulars, but I think 12 the key is whether the input from the Steering 13 Committee is binding. I represent developers 14 but I also come from a civic background. And, 15 you know, when you do these large scale 16 developments, pretty much half of what you're 17 looking at, if you have any kind of 18 conscience, is what the impacts are on the 19 public health, safety, welfare and traffic. 20 And there's certain uses that even 21 the legislature has deemed that require 22 additional consideration. And they're under a 23 group of regulated uses under the Zoning Code 24 which has things like massage parlors, pawn 25 shops, pool halls, go-go bars, which the 51 2 legislature has determined that these uses 3 bring secondary impacts around in the 4 neighborhood with increased crime, 5 prostitution, drugs, et cetera, that they then 6 send to the Zoning Board. 7 And whether that's good or bad. But 8 it gives the -- going to the Zoning Board is a 9 public forum and gives the opportunity of 10 neighbors and civic groups and elected 11 officials to voice their opinion. And if it 12 doesn't meet those standards the Board can 13 deny the applications. 14 So with that said, you know, this 15 legislation to me takes all that public 16 process, for the most part, out of the hands 17 of the neighborhood groups and the civic 18 groups and rests it with the legislature, of 19 course. But I think with the Steering 20 Committee it would have to be binding what 21 their comments are, what their opinions are. 22 And I gave you one example. Where I 23 lived in Southwest Philly the U.S. Postal 24 Service was relocated. And while they met 25 with us about what our concerns were, we 52 2 really just got lip service. We had a 3 Steering Committee. In the end they vote 4 their sovereign immunity in saying, well, 5 we're the federal government, we don't have to 6 follow or get any permits or approvals. 7 So our concerns about traffic and 8 impact, noise, lighting, et cetera, they 9 pretty much ignored. And so we were inundated 10 with 60,000 truck trips a week of tractor 11 trailers and delivery trucks going in and out 12 of the postal service. 13 So, again, I think what it comes 14 back to is whatever the input is has to be 15 binding. 16 MR. GREENBERG: Representative, I 17 think that's a story that's being told a lot, 18 is that they have adopted the provisions of a 19 Commercial Entertainment District. And with 20 two very limited examples, it's just not true. 21 Let me walk through what we would 22 call sort of the high points of the 23 development, the rules that we created for the 24 Commercial Entertainment District and I'll 25 tell you what they do on the current version 53 2 of 862. 3 Actually, to be fair, I don't know 4 if this is the version of it if there was any 5 amendments on Thursday. But the version as of 6 Wednesday, was the last time I looked at it. 7 I don't think anything's changed. 8 Regulated uses that Ron was talking 9 about, we prohibit regulated uses, strip 10 clubs, massage parlors, whatever, with two 11 exceptions which are video game arcades and 12 pool halls, which we felt while they're 13 regulated uses under the code are appropriate 14 for casinos. Regulated uses are completely 15 allowed under the new rules. And in fact, the 16 existing city rules prohibiting regulated uses 17 are struck. 18 Billboards. We have rules that 19 allowed them to have on-site limited 20 billboards. A lot of billboards still, I 21 mean, because it's a casino and you want to 22 promote it. But they were limited in size, 23 they could not be flashing, they could not be 24 neon, they could not be illuminated, they 25 could not be rotating. 54 2 For the four casino sites along the 3 river they were limited to 20 feet above the 4 roof line, I believe it was 30 feet in the 5 last version, but a limited high above the 6 roof line. 7 MR. PATTERSON: I guess that's so 8 you could view it from I-95. 9 MR. GREENBERG: So you could view it 10 from I-95, you could view it from the bridges. 11 But at the same time we didn't want to 12 obstruct the views of the whole community and 13 all the highrises housed on the water. I 14 mean, we didn't want them to become towering 15 behemoths. And we also said that they could 16 do -- could not be rotated, illuminated and 17 they had to be accessory, which means they had 18 to advertise the casino. 19 What the state law -- what 862 now 20 says is this, they basically increased by five 21 the amount of billboard signage they could 22 have, which is above what we thought was a 23 very generous allotment. 24 They specifically allow illuminated, 25 flashing, animated and neon signs. So we're 55 2 talking about Las Vegas type signs. They 3 allow non-accessory signs, which means you can 4 have illuminated, flashing, neon signs for 5 something that's not the casino. Plus the guy 6 who happens to own the casino can make a lot 7 of money selling signs on his roof. 8 And there's absolutely no height 9 limit on those signs. Although, we did have 10 that on Delaware. We did not before the Trump 11 site location because we didn't think there 12 was a public purpose to allow access to the 13 river in terms of use the way there is down 14 here up there. But near the river we thought 15 that was appropriate so we did that. 16 Parking. We had initially said four 17 spots for every five gaming spots. Four 18 parking spaces for every five gaming spots. 19 And this is -- the last version of 862, this 20 is the change they adopted to meet our 21 standards. They went from one every ten to 22 four for every -- to eight for every ten. But 23 that's what the industry wants. 24 We picked eight for ten because the 25 industry says this is what we need on site to 56 2 avoid sending cars through the neighborhood. 3 We want that. So since the industry wants it, 4 we were willing to do that because that made 5 sense. Like I said, we don't want these cars 6 in the neighborhood, that is one provision 7 that is matched in this new version. 8 Height. We had a limit on height. 9 It wasn't -- I mean, it wasn't a small limit, 10 it was 200 feet. I mean, it wasn't like we 11 were being absurd here. But you would need a 12 variance if you wanted to go above 200 feet. 13 That's gone in 862. 14 Lot coverage. We had said that they 15 could only cover 70 percent of the lot. 862 16 says 80 percent. That's better than 100 17 percent they had in the last version of 862, 18 but it's still not there. 70 percent is a lot 19 higher than what we have. 20 And just for a real quick thing on 21 lot coverage, because these are river front 22 properties all of the water will drain, to the 23 extent they cover the lot, into the Delaware 24 River. Which means all of our measures and 25 all of our efforts to handle that water will 57 2 not be applied. 3 And because the City of Philadelphia 4 is treated as a single whole, to the extent 5 that these casinos are allowed to have massive 6 runoff into the river that's untreated and has 7 a lot of particulates in it, the burden on 8 every other non-casino in Philadelphia will be 9 higher. Every business up and down this river 10 is going to feel the obligation to make up, 11 they're going to have to do better than they 12 already do to make up for the casinos. 13 We talked about signs. 14 Streets and civil engineering. It 15 used to be that we controlled -- we wanted to 16 have, through the zoning process, a traffic 17 management plan so we could look at what 18 intersections does traffic from the properties 19 were flowing in and out. That's something of 20 an issue at Foxwoods. It's more of an issue 21 on the North Delaware where you don't want an 22 entrance to be right at Spring Garden Street 23 where you get some funny turns. Or you get up 24 to Foxwoods where you wouldn't want it to be 25 at the base of the ramp and you would have 58 2 some funny turns. You want to do some 3 dedicated -- you want to figure out how to do 4 it right. 5 We don't have that authority to say, 6 You do this, You don't do this. We didn't 7 want to veto it, we just wanted to make sure 8 they were living up to their plans. 9 Set backs. In our version in the 10 CED there is a front, rear, side set backs. 11 There's a requirement for vegetative border 12 next to residential districts. Now there is a 13 front set back of ten feet rather than 30. 14 Access to the water up and down the 15 Delaware. We had said there should be a 50 16 foot path, 30 feet for pedestrians and 20 feet 17 for bikes. It is now down to 30 feet -- down 18 to 20 feet, sorry. We had also, with the 19 current version of the fixed bill that's in 20 Council, which is pending, said that for some 21 spots along the Delaware you could drop down 22 to 20 feet if the geography for the way the 23 river bends or whatever, you need to do some 24 things, the Planning Commission would have 25 that authority. They just made it 20 feet 59 2 throughout. 3 And finally, there's no landscaping 4 plan. Also missing from this are some things 5 that are in that fixed bill. For example, we 6 want to mandate that all trash must be stored 7 inside. That is gone. 8 So there's a whole series of things 9 that our plan -- and, frankly, how we got this 10 bill is we've drafted one we liked. But then 11 we sat down with the casino operators, we sat 12 down with the neighborhood groups and said 13 tell us what you think. We haven't taken all 14 of their suggestions from either group, but 15 every casino operator has bought in, every 16 neighborhood group has bought in. And in 17 fact, four of the five casinos operators have 18 told us their plans are currently compliant 19 with 98 percent of the CED, with the exception 20 of this area where the river bends, which is 21 one of the things we're fixing. 22 So we aren't quite sure why this is 23 going to be a problem because they're already 24 building to our code. 25 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Well, Kevin, 60 2 here's our dilemma. As we are trying to make 3 862 better we have Senator Fumo saying that, 4 oh, they just did tremendous benefit to the 5 community by what they put in 862 as it 6 pertains to the Commercial Entertainment 7 District. You would disagree with that? 8 MR. GREENBERG: I won't comment on 9 Senator Fumo. 10 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: I'm not 11 asking you to comment on Senator Fumo. I want 12 you to just -- what I thought you said, that 13 what they put in with regard to the Commercial 14 Entertainment District in 862 does not give 15 you more control, but rather much less? 16 MR. GREENBERG: Absolutely, with the 17 exception of parking and lot coverage where 18 they have come very close to what we have, but 19 not -- but didn't get there completely. 20 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: So, I mean, 21 that's what we're battling in the media where 22 it's being spun that 862 is a good government 23 and gave everything that the city already 24 wants is put in that bill, what are you 25 complaining about? We're just going to get 61 2 the casino -- the Gaming Control Commission to 3 adopt the Commercial Entertainment District 4 and proceed. And that's not true, right? 5 MR. GREENBERG: In my expert opinion 6 you have stated it correctly. 7 MR. PATTERSON: How is the city's 8 version -- excuse me -- enforced or appealed 9 if the application or the design doesn't match 10 the criteria? 11 MR. GREENBERG: If the application 12 or design -- 13 MR. DOUGHERTY: Excuse me, Kevin. 14 That was a very interesting 15 question. I don't know if you heard that one. 16 Would you take your time, Ron, and say that 17 into the mike, please. 18 MR. PATTERSON: Sure. My question 19 was, if the design, the development design 20 does not meet the city's criteria as stated 21 how is it enforced and what is the appeal 22 process both from the developer's angle, 23 excuse me, and the civic group neighborhood 24 angle? 25 MR. GREENBERG: Under the CED 62 2 process right now as it stands -- well, let me 3 tell you, the Zoning Code right now, as you 4 know, Ron, prohibits gambling because gambling 5 has never been a legal activity. It's one of 6 those prohibited uses that you just can't 7 build any place in the city. The CED has 8 created an exception to that rule which are 9 the CED Districts. In the absence of a CED 10 District you couldn't get a zoning permit for 11 a gambling hall, couldn't get a use of 12 occupancy certificate. 13 MR. PATTERSON: So this establishes 14 a new zoning district. 15 MR. GREENBERG: It created its own 16 classification. And then you create -- within 17 that classification you apply to a new zoning 18 district. And that CED District which you now 19 create gambling is a permitted use. And you 20 get an over the counter permit. In the 21 absence of compliance with that, which 22 requires a hearing through the Planning 23 Commission and their evaluation and evaluation 24 by Streets and evaluation by Water, all of 25 which then goes to City Council which adopts 63 2 or rejects. 3 Once Council adopts -- and the 4 public has a lot of input through that 5 process. Once Council as a whole, and not a 6 single councilman, once Council as a whole 7 adopts that initiative it's an over the 8 counter permit and it's ready -- and there's 9 no appeal from that permit by either group. 10 If Council -- it's like a city overlay, it's 11 an overlay. I mean, we created a district 12 where this is an as-of-right permit. So if 13 Council does not do it, then obviously you 14 have PZB. 15 MR. DOUGHERTY: The gaming use and 16 all its related issues then become right? 17 MR. GREENBERG: If you got a CED 18 District and -- yes. 19 MR. DOUGHERTY: The focus, okay, 20 let's stay on that, let's not miss that point, 21 okay. So the Entertainment District, okay, 22 the minute the Entertainment District is 23 approved, basically the gaming and all its 24 related entities are by right from there, at 25 that point on? 64 2 MR. GREENBERG: Within the envelope 3 that's permitted in the district, yes. 4 MR. DOUGHERTY: The object, okay, is 5 that sometimes we can't or we don't want to 6 slow down the process. Okay. But in this 7 case there's so many issues -- we have one 8 gentleman faced social issues that go along 9 with it. 10 There's the Senate bill that some of 11 our brothers and sisters in the labor movement 12 that are here today, if you don't read that 13 and you don't know who the players are you 14 have no idea that the same people who own 15 Foxwoods have some other associated entities 16 that own the land in which Wal-Mart and some 17 of them other places are. So that if you 18 continue to move the casino down, okay, 19 there's some discussions about moving the 20 Wal-marts and the some of the other places 21 down further, starts to affect the livelihood 22 of the I.L.A., okay. 23 And there are things, there are 24 things that, you know, that we're just 25 starting to digest here. And I don't want 65 2 everyone in the room to automatically think 3 because Senate bill 862 is so bad that the 4 casino entertainment district is the answer to 5 all the woes. Because basically from a 6 neighborhood point of view, the minute you 7 have that district in place, okay, I mean, the 8 gaming automatically becomes by right. 9 MR. GREENBERG: Well, yeah. The 10 idea, John, in terms of tailoring the 11 districts so that we would put the districts 12 essentially the size of the plot that's 13 brought to us. So to talk about the Foxwoods 14 site, the Wal-mart properties wouldn't be part 15 of the district unless through the Planning 16 Commission process, which is a public hearing 17 process, and through City Council, which has a 18 public hearing process, they are made part of 19 that district. 20 MR. DOUGHERTY: And what we have 21 to -- one of the reasons we're here, in 22 particular, this water front, there's seven or 23 eight neighborhoods. And I'll speak again 24 just for Pennsport. 25 Pennsport starts on Snyder Avenue 66 2 about 2000 South, it runs to Washington 3 Avenue, about 900 South, somewhere in that 4 vicinity, okay. On the lower end at Front and 5 Mercy I have widows who lived in the same 6 house which has been handed down from family 7 to family who live on a $300 dollar pension 8 from the sugar house from years ago at the 9 lower end that are concerned about keeping 10 their door open and feeling safe and worried 11 about keeping the water out of their basement. 12 On the Northern end of Pennsport I 13 have 25 to 30 houses over $675,000 for sale, 14 and a double income, rather professional, 15 okay, double degree group of people that 16 attend the same civic association. That's 17 within one little community. And that's so 18 diverse and the opinions are so different. 19 So you can imagine when we work our 20 way from the lower end of Whitman, you know, 21 up through Society Hill into Northern 22 Liberties, you have different, you have 23 different -- so it's not the fact that you 24 have three or four casinos looking at Delaware 25 Avenue. You have three or four different sets 67 2 of communities and different classes of people 3 there, okay. And so, you know, you just can't 4 blanket. 5 Now, I know certain things are in 6 place already. Look, again, I tell you, for 7 the record, I get paid to build buildings. 8 It's just that you have people that just don't 9 understand. Let me put it this way, I think 10 sometimes we misrepresent to them, and it's a 11 tad disingenuous, to that grandmother that 12 lives on the 100 block of Mercy Street who 13 votes for the last so many elections and just 14 thinks that she's being -- you know, her 15 interests are being protected. And they're 16 not. 17 MR. GREENBERG: I will only say that 18 the CED does not solve every issue that's 19 associated with gaming, you're right. It's 20 our attempt to do right what we can. If 21 you're going to have a huge commercial 22 development there and there are up sides and 23 down sides to this. 24 And frankly, I think the CED is 25 probably the right balance, although that's 68 2 obviously integrative terms to decide for 3 themselves, between going fast and getting 4 something done, and at the same time ensuring 5 the right checks are in place to protect the 6 communities. 7 What we don't want to do is end up 8 in -- we wanted to create a system that would, 9 frankly, allow Representative Taylor, 10 Representative Keller and Representative 11 Lederer to say to their colleagues we're not 12 going to hold this up in court for six years, 13 but we're going to make sure the community is 14 protected. And that's the balance we try to 15 strike. 16 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Just so the 17 audience understands my reference with regard 18 to the zoning and the veto power or the de 19 facto veto power of a councilman, I wasn't 20 just talking about this particular council 21 district or this councilman, but every 22 district councilman where this sort of 23 developed common law, if you will, in the city 24 of Philadelphia is that they have that 25 control. 69 2 And, you know, at least 3 Representative Keller and Lederer and I have 4 been involved in situations where we 5 appropriate $450 million dollars for a 6 building project that's held up for eight 7 years with thousands of jobs at stake, and 8 things like that, and it just gets held up for 9 who knows what reason, even if the community 10 all bought in, but. So that's where the 11 thinking comes from. 12 But again, now, you know, after 13 looking at all the other things that are put 14 in that bill and the testimony we received 15 yesterday about how damaging that is. You 16 know, I will at least put my faith in what 17 you're saying is that there will be an 18 accepting, reasonable process should you have 19 that power. 20 MR. DOUGHERTY: Planning Commission, 21 now, just because the Mayor -- and we're happy 22 that the executive order came down last week. 23 But I imagine that the Planning Commission had 24 to have some studies on the impact of the 25 casinos on what would happen on a long term 70 2 infrastructure going or do you have any work 3 product to this point? 4 MR. KNAPTON: There's one work 5 product which we submitted to Kevin last year. 6 And apart from that -- also economic 7 development work on the river front north and 8 south, but not specific to the casinos. 9 MR. DOUGHERTY: Well, okay, how 10 about the infrastructure in general? Like, do 11 you have anything, you have any opinion, has 12 there been a documented opinion, not today's 13 opinion, has there been anything in the past 14 that says, Hey, the access and egress off of 15 the Reed/Washington Street exit, things like 16 that? 17 MR. KNAPTON: For economic 18 development purposes we do that when specific 19 projects come up as to the Redevelopment 20 Authority and PIDC. And that's about the 21 limit of what I can say. 22 MR. DOUGHERTY: Well, I'm the 23 Chairman of the Board for the Philadelphia 24 Redevelopment Authority and I haven't seen 25 anything yet. I don't know about PIDC, but 71 2 from my perspective I haven't seen anything 3 yet. And I make it a point of making sure 4 that every new development has the proper 5 engineering when it comes to distribution and 6 processing of sewage and water and things 7 along them lines, so. 8 MR. GREENBERG: Patrick Mulligan, 9 who is in the room here today from the Gaming 10 Task Force Staff, worked with Planning and the 11 Streets, to the extent we have good casino 12 based traffic studies, they are incomplete. 13 We know they were done as a high level look 14 and now that the plans are becoming more 15 concrete there needs to be a lot more detailed 16 look. 17 MR. DOUGHERTY: The State Rep. wants 18 to talk. I just want to follow up. 19 Yesterday we had a meeting -- this 20 is relevance of our brothers and sisters at 21 I.L.A., the Food Produce Center. I addressed 22 it during the negotiations at the Penn's 23 Landing Board meeting about dumping the 24 traffic on Delaware Avenue. And I asked, and 25 you were in the room when I asked PIDC, three 72 2 four, maybe five times. And they said, Well, 3 we're not sure. 4 Yesterday we were told that it looks 5 like most of the traffic will be ran in. And 6 the fact that there's already been $150 7 million dollars or so, and that, you know, put 8 in towards, state money toward the Produce 9 Center. And that there was going to be a 10 road, temporary road and permanent road and 11 there was going to be a permanent bridge. 12 Does the Planning Commission take 13 into play -- so I just don't want this to get 14 focussed on gaming because this is talking 15 about jobs for people who live inside the 16 neighborhood, you know, where I grew up at. 17 How does, when we have a plan, who is there to 18 represent the men and women who are working on 19 them jobs in the layouts of the infrastructure 20 that goes with the future development? 21 Because by putting a road in a wrong 22 place it basically could landlock and cut the 23 ability for some of the larger stevedore 24 companies to develop and grow. 25 MR. KNAPTON: I think I can give a 73 2 general answer to your specific question about 3 the Naval Business Center and access. Because 4 one of the basic problems when the city 5 acquired the Navy Base was it was one access, 6 Broad Street. And so from that time on the 7 Planning Commission has been talking about, 8 okay, the second road, the second access and 9 what kind of bridge that would require and how 10 much cost that will be. 11 Now, the specifics of that I don't 12 know. But I know that from the outset people 13 have said, Well, at some point, depending on 14 the level of development on what used to be 15 called Muston Field, the Naval Air Station 16 Field in the east end of the Naval Base, at 17 some point when that becomes developable and 18 there's a demand for it then obviously there's 19 going to be a traffic issue and a question of 20 how to pay for and where to put a major 21 bridge. 22 So basically the discussion has been 23 so far as I know, informal, but that's so far 24 as I know. 25 MR. DOUGHERTY: See yesterday, and 74 2 I'll move forward with this, yesterday it was 3 some specific conversation about that. The 4 cost, you know, how long it's going to be 5 there and the answers were probably permanent, 6 permanent, and we think permanent. Also the 7 conversation is a little concerning to myself 8 from a Foxwood perspective and the community's 9 perspective is that PennDOT, the DEP and the 10 Delaware Planning stated that they had been 11 given cursory, just casual type conversation 12 about parking impacts and things along them 13 lines. 14 So that's why I asked you, Dave, 15 what do you see your role? I mean, there's -- 16 we didn't even talk about green space and land 17 acquisition and all these other points of 18 concern to the people that are here. We are 19 just looking at the basic points that we 20 thought were managed. 21 MR. KNAPTON: Well, one response to 22 that would be to look at the specific case. 23 The specific case that -- I think we're 24 speaking of the same thing -- expansion of the 25 Naval Business Center from the Food 75 2 Distribution Center area. The manager of each 3 is the PIDC. And so what we do in Planning 4 when looking at a parcel or a development site 5 where the developer owns both pieces and wants 6 to develop both pieces, and they're adjacent 7 to each other, we try to make sure the plan's 8 internally consistent and that it works. 9 And if there are a whole bunch of 10 other stakeholders to that, other property 11 owners around the perimeter, that's something 12 else. 13 But if it's internal to the two 14 abutting parcels, then that's a matter of the 15 developer to work on and come back and talk to 16 us. 17 I'm making it sound too simple, 18 but -- 19 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Excuse me. 20 You're not only making it sound simple, you're 21 making it sound like it's in the planning 22 stage and we had PennDOT in here yesterday, 23 said this is done. 24 MR. KNAPTON: I'm sorry to mistake 25 then. I didn't mean to say that it's in the 76 2 planning stage, but only as an example, if two 3 property owners are side by side as the same 4 property -- 5 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: I know we're 6 getting off from what we were talking about, 7 but let's just, so we can get this on the 8 record. 9 DVRPC stood up here and had a slide 10 show and said we have problems that their 11 doing freight movement, we have problems 12 because we have at-grade crossings again into 13 Packer Avenue. 14 PennDOT then said, Oh, we're going 15 to put a road down there. They're going to 16 put a road across six at-grade crossings just 17 to get into the lower end of the Navy Yard. 18 But not take into consideration that that's 19 the future development of the port. They're 20 going to cut the port right in half. Nobody 21 is saying a word. Saying, Done deal. 22 Asked, Well, are you putting it on a 23 TIP plan so that the federal government will 24 pay 80 percent of that? The answer is no, the 25 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is going to take 77 2 on the whole, they said $75 million dollars, 3 and they didn't know how much the road was 4 going to cost. So they're going to take on, I 5 would say, $150 million dollar burden by the 6 time they're done. Not even put it on the TIP 7 list so the feds will pay, be able to pay 8 80 percent of it. That's planning? They're 9 sitting there and they're saying, This is what 10 we're going to do, and this is planning? And 11 the City Planning Commission has no idea 12 what's going on. 13 MR. KNAPTON: Well, I can't speak 14 for PennDOT. 15 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: And why is 16 it -- PIDC, isn't that a -- that's a public 17 entity? 18 MR. KNAPTON: That's a public 19 entity, yes. 20 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Well, you're 21 acting like they're private developers. 22 That's the public's, it's not PIDC, that's us. 23 It's not like PIDC owns two pieces we want to 24 develop. 25 We're saying you got to sit down and 78 2 take a look at this whole thing. And it's 3 not -- it's not a plan, maybe it's a plan, but 4 I'm going to say it's a bad plan. All right. 5 It's a bad plan. It's not looking five years 6 down the road, not along 30 years down the 7 road like we're supposed to look. It's going 8 to cut off all future development of the port 9 industrial that we're interested in. Just so 10 you can get into the lower end of the Navy 11 Yard. 12 We say, take your time, again, let's 13 look at this, there's got to be a better way 14 to do this. Not spending $100 million dollars 15 to get a bridge which, from my understanding, 16 may be the largest structure in South 17 Philadelphia by the time they're done with it. 18 And we're just jamming that in. Everybody 19 ready? Jam. Did anybody know about this 20 going on? It's going on. Plans. City 21 Planning. Apparently, you had something to do 22 with it. 23 Off that subject. Back to 862. All 24 right. Kevin, 862, you said as it stands now 25 it takes away all the city's abilities to 79 2 regulate strip clubs and everything else? 3 MR. GREENBERG: On the casinos 4 themselves, yes. 5 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: In 862 6 there's an associated areas piece. In the 7 associated areas piece this gives, from the 8 way we read it -- and nobody's been able to 9 tell us any different -- the casinos the 10 ability to jump anywhere they want if they 11 could connect it by bridge, pedestrian 12 walkway, variance. 13 MR. GREENBERG: There's actually 14 even a more scary argument, although I think 15 we would fight that in court. 16 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: No, let's 17 have the scary argument, it's Halloween. 18 MR. GREENBERG: So in theory the 19 streets or the utilities, or something like 20 that, could connect it to Chestnut Hill, in 21 theory. We would fight -- I think there's a 22 good argument that you can't go to Chestnut 23 Hill with this, but how far you go -- 24 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: But you 25 could reach, through variance, you could reach 80 2 every property along the Delaware River and 3 you could reach every property across Delaware 4 Avenue. 5 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: We would 6 love to get Chestnut Hill into this battle. 7 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: We could use 8 their support. 9 MR. GREENBERG: Let me put it this 10 way, I think getting across Delaware Avenue by 11 a couple of properties or getting up or down 12 the river a couple of properties from where 13 you are is what the author of this version of 14 862 seems to be contemplating. That is what 15 we think they are contemplating. On behalf of 16 the city I'm not real, real happy with that. 17 And I think we would try to do what we can do 18 to legally fight that. 19 But, I mean, I'm here representing 20 the Solicitor, that's going to have to be his 21 call at the end of the day. 22 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: So in theory 23 what we're saying you believe is also to be 24 true, that the current version of 862 will 25 give -- wrap up in a bow and give to the 81 2 casinos all future development of the Delaware 3 River? 4 MR. GREENBERG: I certainly would 5 not say that for the record in any sort of 6 way. 7 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: I'll say it. 8 Do you agree with me? 9 MR. GREENBERG: I think we'd be 10 fighting that, let me put it that way. 11 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: You'll fight 12 it. But that's what this bill does right now? 13 MR. PATTERSON: There was also a 14 subtlety that was crossed over that Kevin 15 mentioned in the city bill, and it had to do 16 with the approval process. 17 And typically, when you're looking 18 at zoning there's two parts, there are the 19 uses and then there's the zoning dimensional 20 requirements, the height, the bulk, the set 21 back, et cetera. And you go through the Water 22 Department and the Planning Commission and the 23 Streets Department and they review your plans 24 in accordance with their rules and regulations 25 too. 82 2 You file with L & I. It either 3 meets the code requirements. If it doesn't, 4 and if you choose not to meet them, then you 5 go to the Zoning Board for variance relief 6 because you're deviating from the code. 7 This is a rarely used process 8 described here, that you go through the 9 initial steps and the reviewing agency is not 10 L & I or the Zoning Board, it's City Council. 11 City Council, with the Planning Commission, 12 determines whether your plan meets the zoning 13 code requirements. If it does, you 14 automatically get your permit. If it doesn't, 15 you don't get your permit. But back to if it 16 does, there's no appeal process unless you 17 challenge the City Council action by saying it 18 was improperly voted case or they exceeded 19 Constitutional authority. 20 So it does take everyone's input out 21 of the process. Which means that it's very, 22 very important to look at what the parameters 23 are in the bill in terms of the uses and the 24 set backs and everything you're just 25 mentioning. Because once it's in there, you 83 2 can't change it. If it's in there and you 3 meet it, you go to City Council, they have to 4 approve it. So it's rarely used because it's 5 a curve ball kind of process. 6 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: We've been 7 saying this all along, if this bill gets out 8 in two years everybody will be up screaming 9 and it will be too late. 10 This bill will not be able to be -- 11 I said it at the Editorial Board, making laws 12 is not an exact science. Where we pass a 13 bill, we pass a law, then we're back fixing it 14 two years later. We pass this bill, 862, in 15 its current form, there's no fixing it. 16 There's no fixing it. Because we are just 17 handing over future development of the 18 Delaware River, and my concern, the port of 19 Philadelphia, to casinos who have no interest 20 in developing, only in their own interest. 21 MR. GREENBERG: I would take that 22 one step further and say that not only are the 23 zoning codes preempted under this new version 24 of 862, but when the Gaming Act was passed 25 before the provision on zoning was struck 84 2 down, the prohibition -- the preemption was 3 simply limited to land use controls. 4 The current language preempts all 5 regulatory and police powers which includes 6 fire inspection, it includes fire code 7 compliance, it includes the plumbing codes, it 8 includes all of the building codes, all of the 9 building permitting, all the building 10 inspections. You will have to have a state 11 entity responsible, which doesn't exist. 12 Where they will have to hire folks at the 13 state boards to look at fire codes and 14 building codes and all of the compliance 15 issues and the whole permitting process. 16 That, frankly, we have L & I 17 inspectors, good, bad, different, they're here 18 and they know what they're doing. Okay. The 19 state doesn't have those folks in Philadelphia 20 and they will be watching over these 21 properties. 22 And that's something that, again, is 23 one of the things that they just sort of 24 slipped into this version of the bill. 25 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Well, Kevin, 85 2 I know this won't give you any solace, but I'm 3 telling you, they're not only tearing apart 4 what the city has rights to, they're taking 5 riparian rights that have always been a 6 legislative process. It's always been the 7 purview of the legislature to give riparian 8 rights and to go through the process, put a 9 bill in, get it through committee. 10 Representative Taylor and 11 Representative Lederer and myself have done 12 these numerous times. It works, the process 13 works. Get it through committee, have public 14 hearings. Get over in the Senate, get it 15 through the committee, have public hearings. 16 Have the governors, you know, right from the 17 beginning saying they're for this, they're 18 against it. That's taken out of it, that's 19 taken away from the Pennsylvania legislature. 20 And on top of it, we had DEP in here 21 yesterday, we're saying if 862 passes in its 22 current form what will DEP, the Department of 23 Environmental Protection, have anything to do 24 or say about these casino sites? Their answer 25 was no. 86 2 So I don't know, I mean, we have a 3 whole department in the Commonwealth that 4 protects the environment, that's their job. 5 If this bill passes in its current form that 6 department is saying, We don't know who's 7 going to protect the environment, it's not us. 8 So, I mean, we're here, this is 9 another reason why we should have this, and 10 more often. We believe this goes way too far. 11 As Representative Taylor always says, This is 12 excessive, this is not what we intended, this 13 is not what anybody intended. This is bad. 14 We're hearing from you -- I think 15 I'm hearing from you -- that they're given the 16 right to, if that's part of the casino 17 district, they could put strip clubs, they 18 could put whatever they want in there and no 19 one has anything to say about it. 20 MR. PATTERSON: It's in there. 21 MR. GREENBERG: I think the answer 22 is the way the -- there is a good argument a 23 developer could make that the areas 24 immediately adjacent to and around the 25 casinos -- and how far that stretches I think 87 2 somebody would fight about -- but the areas 3 immediately adjacent to and around the casinos 4 would be exempt from a whole host of our laws, 5 be they regulated uses, be they building 6 codes, whatever else. 7 And our firefighters will have to go 8 into these death traps to save people's lives, 9 but we can't make sure they live up to our 10 code before they have to go in there. And 11 that does not make a lot of sense, you know, 12 in this industry or anyplace else. 13 MR. DOUGHERTY: State Representative 14 Marie Lederer. 15 REPRESENTATIVE LEDERER: Kevin, you 16 said there's a traffic plan. Traffic 17 presently on Delaware Avenue is not 18 controlled. The I-95 exit just a couple 19 blocks down from here that spews onto Delaware 20 Avenue just north of Washington Avenue creates 21 gridlock every day no matter what hour of the 22 day it is. So that is only one of the many 23 problems. 24 And does your traffic plan take into 25 consideration the 3,000 new condos plus the 88 2 thousands of cars that will be using Delaware 3 Avenue and let's not forget the buses, the 4 buses that casinos bring? 5 MR. GREENBERG: I may have misspoke. 6 We don't have a traffic plan. We have a 7 traffic assessment. And this predates the 8 3,000, this is just after Best-Buy opened 9 because this is when we took the counts. The 10 answer is -- 11 REPRESENTATIVE LEDERER: What year 12 would that be? 13 MR. GREENBERG: It was mid-2005, 14 spring/summer 2005. 15 Patrick, it was April? 16 MR. MULLIGAN: May. 17 MR. GREENBERG: May 2005 is when we 18 took the counts. 19 It gives us some sense of what was 20 there. It is not a plan by any stretch. What 21 we did was we took the May 2005 counts, 22 overlaid casinos and came up with some 23 assessments and predictions. We do not have 24 plans. Frankly, as far as we're concerned, 25 it's the burden of the city folks working with 89 2 gaming operators in the state to make sure 3 these plans work for everybody, but we don't 4 have plans until we know what's going on yet. 5 At this point it's just, what we have is an 6 assessment from last year. 7 REPRESENTATIVE LEDERER: But it's 8 not just casino traffic, it's condo traffic 9 and traffic off of I-95 for people who want to 10 get off maybe in Center City. 11 Yesterday, one of the gentlemen from 12 PennDOT said that people in the condos should 13 use mini-buses to go back and forth to Center 14 City. 15 MR. GREENBERG: Shuttles. 16 REPRESENTATIVE LEDERER: A shuttle. 17 And that's fine if you're going to Center 18 City. But not everybody's going to Center 19 City. 20 MR. GREENBERG: I would only say 21 that that is exactly -- that is one of the 22 driving forces for the Mayor's executive order 23 this week is to try to take that sort of -- 24 and develop a real plan around traffic driven 25 by the community and the business associations 90 2 over the next year. But it's not there now. 3 And it won't be there by the time the casinos 4 are here. 5 And that's part of what's, frankly, 6 going to make the challenge for the three of 7 you in Harrisburg so difficult. And trying to 8 get the Gaming Control Board to look at these 9 issues and consider them and make the casinos 10 do what they need to do. 11 REPRESENTATIVE LEDERER: Thank you. 12 MR. DOUGHERTY: Matt. 13 MR. RUBEN: This is Matt Ruben, for 14 the stenographer. 15 A couple of things. One is that it 16 seems to me that the associated areas part of 17 this legislation is, in and of itself, a total 18 deal breaker. And that in essence what it 19 does is it says that the Delaware River front 20 is no longer part of Philadelphia. 21 And the stripping of zoning 22 authority, even more worrying, of regulatory 23 authority, as you were speaking of, Kevin, 24 really makes the Chairman of the Gaming 25 Control Board an imperial viceroy overseeing 91 2 Philadelphia. And I'm dead serious. Someone 3 who is far away who is charged with regulating 4 an area which is, in effect, being occupied. 5 And I think that it is incumbent 6 upon our city, and I know City Council has set 7 aside, authorized the setting aside of funds 8 for this. 9 I think as long as the associated 10 areas language remains in any shape or form in 11 862, the original definition did not include 12 the ability to gobble up adjacent property, as 13 long as this definition remains in any shape 14 or form, as long as zoning authority is 15 stripped, even if they photocopy the CED and 16 stuck it in as a state version, as long as 17 zoning authority is stripped and as long as 18 city regulatory authority is stripped, I think 19 it is incumbent morally upon the city to sue 20 the Commonwealth. And I would hope that the 21 Solicitor and the Mayor and the City Council 22 would draw that line in the sand. 23 We have legislation, I believe 24 Mr. -- Representative Keller was saying, in 25 two years people will be up in arms and it 92 2 will be too late. And that's the situation 3 we're in now with Act 71 itself. And that was 4 passed and we fell back. And then 862 is 5 passed -- I mean, is being considered, and 6 where the debate and the public's fear is 7 about, Well, if we can put the city's 8 regulations into the state version then maybe 9 it will be taken care of. 10 And I know that people in the room 11 don't agree with that, but that's what's 12 happening out in the press. And how far do we 13 fall back before we say no and go to war over 14 this? I think that the city must sue the 15 Commonwealth if any of the three provisions I 16 mention are in this bill when and if it is 17 voted on. Do you have any thoughts from what 18 the thinking is in City Hall about this? 19 MR. GREENBERG: I will tell you that 20 conversations are being had. And I think we 21 want to wait and see what happens on 862. 22 I will only tell you my personal 23 capacity, rather than City Hall capacity, that 24 there are a lot more than three deal breakers 25 in this bill. That deal breakers are not the 93 2 term that I want because this is not a deal 3 that's worth considering. That it doesn't do 4 anything. 5 I know the Mayor has been very clear 6 that he did not want to slightly improve 862's 7 preemption provision, he wants it out. And 8 he's been very clear on that. The manner of 9 taking it out, hopefully our legislative 10 delegation is able to take it out for us and 11 it never becomes an issue. And I don't want 12 to go to the hypotheticals. But the Mayor's 13 take on it has been very clear, there should 14 be no preemption. 15 And there are a lot more deal 16 breakers. And so it's a bad deal and we don't 17 want to get into the discussion. 18 MR. DOUGHERTY: State Representative 19 Taylor. 20 Matt, are you done? 21 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Just 22 one question with regard to the commercial 23 entertainment districts. And I'll ask this, 24 with the current version of 862 or without, 25 let's say it wasn't there at all, I think this 94 2 question would apply either way, am I correct 3 in understanding that as it pertains to 4 casinos that there's very little, if any, 5 judicial oversight of that should anything 6 occur in terms of that district that it is 7 appealable? That there's particular 8 provisions that pertain just to casinos in the 9 current commercial entertainment district? 10 MR. GREENBERG: I believe the only 11 language -- and I don't have it with me -- of 12 the CED bill that pertains to casinos is 13 allowing of an use. But it would be the same 14 rules that would apply to any -- there would 15 still be judicial oversight whether or not 16 they comply with the building envelope, the 17 signage to whatever else they're permitted 18 for. There would still be judicial oversight 19 over the various permits being properly 20 issued. However, you have to prove error. 21 And our design here was if a casino 22 was developed, licensed by the state and put 23 in a place where City Council, through the 24 Planning Commission and City Council, 25 determined it was appropriate to have it, with 95 2 a plan of development that is approved by City 3 Council, it would be presented by, the gaming 4 applicant said, This is what we want to build, 5 the Planning Commission will work with them on 6 it, Streets and L & I and Water will work with 7 them on it. And then the City Council will 8 review it to pass it all the way through these 9 public processes. And at that point they 10 would have and it would be able to sort of go 11 right to build once you go through the 12 process, rather than go through a series of 13 hearings judicially. 14 Now, if somebody wanted -- if they 15 get the permit and then they choose to build 16 five times the sign facing that's allowed or 17 they put a flashing neon sign which is 18 prohibited, obviously you still have 19 oversight. 862, on the other hand, takes that 20 whole process out and the first appeal is the 21 State Supreme Court. 22 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Let me just, 23 instead of asking a question I'll just say 24 that could you please look at the provisions? 25 And I hope that you and I maybe will get a 96 2 chance to talk more when we're through here 3 and we get some of this stuff in writing a lot 4 quicker than our -- then she'll get it for me. 5 But can you just look at that and see as it 6 pertains -- the CED as it pertains to casinos, 7 how different that is from any other bar, 8 restaurant, commercial, retail or whatever. 9 We don't need to do that right this 10 second. I mean, one of the lines, you know, 11 my friend Mike O'Brien gives us is that under 12 that provision it may be easier to get a 13 casino than it will be to get a hotdog stand 14 because of the particular provisions in the 15 commercial entertainment district. 16 MR. GREENBERG: After Tad Dechert 17 says yes, you got to go through City Council, 18 but not L & I. And I'm not going to weigh on 19 it on which one is the easier process. 20 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, but isn't it 21 true that the review at City Council is really 22 just a checklist review, do you meet what the 23 parameters are set forth in the bill or the 24 code? There's no discretionary review, it's 25 the checklist. Did you meet the set back? Do 97 2 you meet the uses? 3 MR. GREENBERG: No, actually, it's 4 actually -- there's no requirement that 5 Council vote yes or no based on the checklist. 6 Council gets to undertake a planning 7 discretion process. Once Council's determined 8 that it's appropriate to put a casino there, 9 frankly, I think we would all like to avoid a 10 situation where we get into a showdown with 11 the state where Council decides that a given 12 piece of property is inappropriate for a 13 casino and the state wants it. Because then 14 we get into inviting the kind of preemption 15 legal fight that the state has not -- and the 16 state has been quite successful with the 17 Parking Authority and some other places where, 18 you know, it becomes problematic. 19 But within that I think what we're 20 really talking about is the building envelope, 21 the traffic impact and sort of figuring out 22 what works and what doesn't work. But the 23 idea is to have a real process that's a 24 partnership. 25 And I will say this, that of the 98 2 five sites there's some that are doing a lot 3 better than others in terms of working with 4 the communities to figure out what works and 5 what doesn't work, and how to make it within 6 the neighborhood and what doesn't fit within 7 the neighborhood. And there's some that are 8 -- don't even have any specifics at all. 9 MR. DOUGHERTY: Okay. How about 10 Rich. I'm sorry. 11 MR. LEVINS: Kevin, earlier this 12 year we had a meeting in Holy Name Church in 13 Fishtown where Herb and I reside. And Darryl 14 Clarke came up to me and said, You know, your 15 organization really needs to think about an 16 initiative to ensure that opportunists who may 17 come into your community after a casino 18 applicant receives a license to turn Girard 19 Avenue into a series of pawn shops, check 20 cashing, go-go bars, whatever. 21 And I mean, based on what I've 22 heard, and I'm familiar with the issues 23 associated with the Senate bill, but putting 24 that aside, we're going to be meeting with 25 Councilman Clarke shortly, do we already have 99 2 those protections with respect to those 3 specific types of industries? Or is there 4 other zoning overlays that could be done with 5 his support? I mean, he's the one who brought 6 it up to us. 7 MR. GREENBERG: Some of both. With 8 respect to go-go bars, for example, you're 9 well covered. There is a restricted use 10 provision except if somebody has an exemption 11 from that they're covered. 12 With respect to pawn shops or payday 13 lenders or whatever, I don't believe there is 14 such a provision. And so there's probably a 15 middle ground. And again, if the Councilman 16 asks, I'm sure our department will be happy to 17 work with him. 18 MR. DOUGHERTY: Questions about -- 19 yes. 20 MS. GOODWIN: My name is Rene 21 Goodwin and I have two questions. The first 22 question, if I understand correctly, the 23 purpose of the commercial entertainment 24 district is to create a sort of an oversight 25 body. However, it is also my understanding 100 2 that if 862 is passed in its present form 3 without major change that that really prevails 4 over the entertainment district. 5 So am I correct in assuming that the 6 worse of all possible worlds if 862 is passed, 7 the commercial entertainment district is 8 virtually powerless or has power only to the 9 extent that the casinos and/or the State 10 Gaming Control Board is willing to accept its 11 suggestions? That's one of my questions. 12 My second question is, several 13 months ago I had the opportunity to attend a 14 meeting with the Mayor, other city officials 15 and community representatives. It was the 16 first go 'round in this particular series of 17 looking, again, at a water front plan. I 18 remember the Mayor stated in a sort of a 19 frustrated fashion repeatedly that he didn't 20 want to bring bodies of people together to 21 develop a water front plan, again, only for it 22 to become a lovely plan on paper that sits up 23 on the shelf along with some other plans. And 24 the problem has always been the resources to 25 implement that plan. 101 2 Well, first of all, you're on a fast 3 track. And I'm just wondering, and I don't 4 know that you can honestly answer this, but I 5 am just wondering, is it the intention now, 6 even on this fast track, that some of the 7 resources or the primary resources to develop 8 this new water front plan would come from the 9 casinos? Because if not, then why are we on 10 the fast track if we don't have the resources 11 to implement? Thank you. 12 MR. GREENBERG: On the first one, I 13 would go so far as to say I think you may have 14 understated the problem. With the CED 15 becoming essentially a moot process. We will 16 be taking that plan and going to the casinos 17 and saying, please comply with this, this 18 makes sense. But it will be a please and not 19 any sort of regulatory authority. But it will 20 become a guideline. And at least to the 21 extent of what they said so far the casinos 22 have by and large agreed to go with that. 23 Even if -- and to some extent, the 24 timing works for us in that the extent they 25 want to start construction in January or 102 2 February and just planning already, they have 3 been planning in a CED world. But -- 4 MS. GOODWIN: Right. And I will 5 respect you in the morning. 6 MR. GREENBERG: And as I said, you 7 may have understated it. 8 With respect to the second one, the 9 Mayor has repeatedly said just that, that this 10 doesn't work if we don't have the resources to 11 do it. And the plan has to sing and bring 12 resources to bear. We have reason to believe 13 there's going to be substantial foundation 14 support, not just for the plan, but for the 15 implementation. We believe that our 16 legislative leaders will, if they see a 17 wonderful plan, find resources to help us 18 implement it both at the state and at the 19 local level. But the plan has to -- it has to 20 sing for its supper, essentially. And the 21 plan is to do that. 22 In terms of going on a fast track, I 23 don't think we're on that much of a fast 24 track. I mean, we're going fast. The idea of 25 using Penn Praxis and the foundation money to 103 2 do this is to allow us to do it in a year 3 rather than five. 4 But I think the reason we're on a 5 fast track is if we wait five or three years a 6 lot of this development will have already 7 happened. So it's not a question of getting 8 the resources, it's a question of getting this 9 done before it happens through market forces 10 without any sort of planning. 11 MR. DOUGHERTY: I'd like State 12 Representative Taylor to respond and then 13 we'll go to Flip Renzi. 14 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: This is a 15 question for Kevin, John. 16 Unfortunately, we need to act 17 tomorrow, tonight. Can you give me your 18 opinion based on our discussion that in the 19 event that we were able to strip out of this 20 bill things like the billboard provisions, the 21 utility/sewage provisions, the associated area 22 provisions, the riparian rights, a lot of the 23 new things that were in there. But if was 24 retained in that, and let's say we can't get 25 rid of the total preemption zoning, but added 104 2 the commercial entertainment district 3 language, would the extraction of those things 4 that you think trump the commercial 5 entertainment district language, would that 6 make it a better bill or make no difference? 7 MR. GREENBERG: The Mayor has always 8 said that we do not expect as the city of 9 Philadelphia to pick where these sights go. 10 The legislature has made very clear that the 11 Gaming Control Board gets to pick which two 12 sights get these casinos. What we are focused 13 on is how they get built. 14 We do not try, and we have never 15 tried, to preempt. In fact, the version of 16 the commercial entertainment legislation 17 amendments that are pending in front of City 18 Council now, that Councilman DiCicco 19 introduced in a cooperative effort with the 20 Administration, say just that, that we expect 21 the Gaming Control Board to pick where this 22 goes and we do not ever assert that. 23 I'm not sure why much more than that 24 is needed beyond that, frankly, Representative 25 Taylor. I'll direct your question to the 105 2 Mayor. I'm not in a position to say what 3 would be a deal or no deal or good or bad. 4 Clearly, you're focusing on things 5 that need fixing. But whether or not the city 6 would think it's a good deal or, as Matt 7 pointed out, deal breakers, there's a lot of 8 deal breakers in this deal and that's why I 9 don't think the Mayor's ever wanted to have 10 this discussion because there's just so many 11 deal breakers embedded in this piece of 12 legislation. 13 MR. DOUGHERTY: Flip Renzi. 14 MR. RENZI: Flip Renzi, former and 15 future flood recipient from the 100 block of 16 McKean Street. And I also have a 17 family-sustaining job on the Philadelphia 18 water front. 19 You keep talking about your plan. 20 And it seemed like to me that your plan that 21 you presented to the casino people, they just 22 took it and wrote whatever they felt like it. 23 As far as you didn't want billboards so high, 24 you didn't want anything to light it up and 25 all this other stuff. And the casinos just 106 2 went, nah, we're going to have rotating 3 billboards. 4 You also said that the casinos are 5 allowed to dump their water into the Delaware 6 River. And any other future business will 7 have to make up for what the casinos are 8 doing. I don't know why the residents 9 couldn't take their water and dump it into the 10 Delaware River and make the casinos build a 11 new sewer system. 12 But what I see in the City's plan 13 is you really don't have a plan. You could 14 ride down Delaware Avenue on a Friday 15 afternoon at 5 o'clock without the 300 new 16 condominiums or the casinos and you ain't 17 getting down Delaware Avenue. So as far as 18 your plan is, you don't have it. 19 What I'm saying is, taking into 20 consideration -- or left out of the 21 consideration, have been the residents and the 22 laborers on the Philadelphia water front. 23 Once your plan goes into effect, my 24 unprofessional opinion, is the casinos have 25 carte blanche. And they're going to do 107 2 anything they feel like. So as far as holding 3 up bill 862, that's a good thing. But you 4 keep saying your plan and I don't think you 5 have a plan. 6 MR. GREENBERG: Mr. Renzi, I think I 7 may have either misspoke or you may have 8 misunderstood me. The city has, at this point 9 I guess, some analysis and we have a process 10 to create this plan that's not there yet. 11 To the extent we're talking about 12 casino regulation, we have a law, the problem 13 is that bill 862, which we are all sort of 14 faced with the reality of the legislature 15 considering in the next week or so, intends to 16 gut that law and make it moot. We don't like 17 that. That's part of why -- I know I have 18 spoken as strongly on this as I have. And I 19 know all three members of the legislature up 20 here have spoken as strongly as they have both 21 here and in other forums. And I know that's 22 what a lot of our local officials want. There 23 are state officials who want otherwise. 24 But if, to the extent that you are 25 right, that we cannot protect residents the 108 2 way -- we are regulating residents in a way we 3 are not regulating the casinos, that is the 4 reality if the legislature says the city 5 cannot regulate casinos. 6 If the city can regulate casinos 7 they will not be allowed to dump water in a 8 way that's inconsistent with other 9 development, they will not be able to build 10 unsafe buildings in a way that's inconsistent 11 with other development. We're going to hold 12 them up to the same process of development 13 that we use for other large development and do 14 it right. We're going to walk them through it 15 and we're going to move fast. But we're going 16 to make sure they go through the same set of 17 processes that other major developments do and 18 then streamline it once they're clear, once 19 they're doing what they need to do to be 20 responsible members of Philadelphia's 21 community. 22 We don't like casinos, we don't hate 23 casinos, we haven't picked to have them, we 24 aren't opposing them, they're coming. And so 25 our goal here is to regulate them like we 109 2 regulate every other business. Knowing in 3 reality that the state has a definitive 4 interest in getting these up fast, and, 5 frankly, so do we. The city is going to get 6 about $30 million dollars a year from these 7 casinos. Not going to solve all these 8 problems by any stretch, but that does go into 9 the General Fund. And we have an interest in 10 starting that in 2009 just like the casinos 11 did. The casinos get a lot more than 12 $30 million, but -- 13 MR. DOUGHERTY: What I'll do is I'll 14 go to this young woman up front, then I'll 15 come back to Jimmy Paylor. 16 MS. THORPE: My name is Sarah 17 Thorpe, I have two questions, actually. My 18 first was about riparian rights, but I'm going 19 to go to my second question because something 20 that Kevin just said reminded me of something. 21 The $30 million dollars from the -- 22 the host fee that's coming from the state as a 23 part of gaming, we have heard that that is 24 already earmarked to go to expansion of the 25 Convention Center and that that money is not 110 2 at all in any way going to supplement city 3 services that we're going to need once these 4 facilities come. So my question is, how is 5 that money going to be spent? And then if I 6 could ask a second question about riparian 7 rights, that would be great. 8 MR. GREENBERG: First of all, Sarah, 9 congratulations on your new job. 10 MS. THORPE: Thank you. 11 MR. GREENBERG: The $30 million 12 dollars or the $26 to $30 million is the range 13 we're talking about host fees, actually what 14 it is, it's a payment to the General Fund. 15 And so it goes into the General Fund and out 16 of the General Fund we spend money. There's 17 not an earmarked fund for it. So, no, it is 18 not dedicated to the Convention Center. It 19 goes into the General Fund. 20 What goes to the Convention Center? 21 Under the Gaming Act, 52 cents on every dollar 22 the casino makes gets paid into taxes. 23 30-some cents of it goes to lower our 24 individual Philadelphia wage taxes, around the 25 state property taxes. 13 cents, give or take, 111 2 goes to the race tracks for reasons of 3 legislative compromise. Four percent goes to 4 the host municipalities, which is the $26 to 5 $30 million dollars. And five percent goes to 6 a fund for economic development. Of that 7 five percent the legislature has said for the 8 first ten years in all but two counties of the 9 state can be spent on any sort of economic 10 development. In Pittsburg and in Philadelphia 11 it's use is -- in Allegheny County and 12 Philadelphia County it's uses are very 13 constrained. In Philadelphia it's only for 14 the Convention Center for the first ten years. 15 So that's that five percent. 16 The four percent that is the host 17 fee goes into the General Fund and like other 18 General Fund money is spent on services or 19 whatever else gets spent that way. 20 MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes. Riparian 21 rights. 22 MS. THORPE: Thank you. The second 23 question on riparian rights. 24 We've discussed a little bit in S.B. 25 862 about the riparian rights issue that is in 112 2 the current amendment. But with respect to 3 riparian rights on a larger scale with the 4 river front, if we are having this increased 5 push for public access to the river front and 6 public green space along the river front, why 7 would we give away riparian rights that are 8 already in the public realm and sell those or 9 give those to private developers when we 10 really don't even have enough public space on 11 the river front already? 12 Is there talk in Harrisburg about 13 riparian rights and the Governor's moratorium 14 that nobody really understood six months ago 15 about these riparian issues? 16 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: I've always 17 said I never understood the Governor's 18 moratorium because the Governor has veto 19 power. Just to say there's a moratorium 20 doesn't stop any one of us in the legislature 21 from putting a riparian rights bill in. We 22 put it in, and as I explained, it goes through 23 the normal legislative process, public 24 hearings everybody has access to. 25 We believe that system has worked. 113 2 We had testimony yesterday from DEP that it's 3 not only worked, it's worked for 300 years. 4 It's one of the oldest licenses granted in the 5 United States. It does work. 6 As far as 862? Just ripping it all 7 out and just giving whoever wins the casino 8 license in Philadelphia, only in Philadelphia, 9 whoever wins the casino license wins all their 10 problems with riparian rights will go away. 11 We are opposed to that. We are 12 trying to get it out of the bill. We don't 13 know why it's in the bill. We didn't put it 14 in the bill. It just showed up in the House 15 two weeks ago? It came out of the Senate, it 16 was amended in the Senate with all these 17 things it in, came back to the House. We've 18 been fighting it ever since it came back to 19 the House. We're-- I don't know why it's in 20 there. I don't believe it should be in there. 21 We're doing everything we can to get it out of 22 there. 23 MS. THORPE: I think my question was 24 more focused on not necessarily the S.B. 862 25 for the casinos, but riparian rights for other 114 2 development, not necessarily casinos. 3 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Like I said, 4 they've always been the same. We've always 5 worked with them, they have public comment, 6 we've done a number of them that. It's intact 7 now. The way it is now the public has to come 8 and have their comments. If 862 passes just 9 for the casinos, not only the legislators, we 10 don't have anything to say about it, the 11 public doesn't have anything to say about it. 12 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Sarah, I 13 don't know, except for those licensed 14 properties, if you will, the riparian rights 15 have not changed. But for those that get a 16 license on that particular property, they 17 have, for all intents and purposes, are given 18 riparian rights. 19 Now it's a much more complicated 20 explanation now with these credits that they 21 get and all that. There's no legislative 22 process at all involved in those particular 23 rights. And there's virtually, the way it was 24 drafted, there would be virtually no cost by 25 the time they're done. 115 2 But is it going to affect north of 3 the site, south, it would be the same way. 4 Which we also think is unfair to anybody else 5 that has to go through this long and 6 sometimes, you know, expensive legislative 7 process. But we're just giving it to them. 8 And this is just -- the riparian 9 rights bill is one of many elements that were 10 just put in that bill that gives complete full 11 range of authority to just the casinos. It 12 just strips any ability to stop them. And 13 they'll tell you that that's why it's in 14 there. It's not really magic. They'll say, 15 We don't want anybody putting a stop sign up 16 for us in any way. And they strip every 17 single thing out of there. 18 MR. DOUGHERTY: Jim Paylor. 19 MR. PAYLOR: John, before I go on, I 20 might have taken two weeks to give you a 21 history of the port so I know I can't do that. 22 So I wrote my notes on my jacket. So I 23 thought it would be shorter, I think. 24 First of all, let me thank the whole 25 panel. I mean that sincerely. 116 2 I've been a union official now for 3 25 years, this is the first time that I 4 attended a meeting that allowed input, okay, 5 from what I'll refer to the working class 6 people and the people voting along the river 7 ports. Most of them are familiar that the 8 demographics of the river ports are changing 9 drastically which creates a situation that 10 causes us to talk about the subject that we're 11 talking about right now. 12 My comments, however, probably 13 should have been made yesterday but I wasn't 14 aware that this was happening. And that's not 15 anybody else's fault, I'm not blaming you. 16 But my concern is we have been 17 speaking here for two hours, and with the 18 exception of what the state officials have 19 raised, along with yourself, John, the 20 discussion has been casino entertainment 21 district. 22 Okay. Now, if you look this way or 23 we look that way, okay, this was industrial 24 port and still is an industrial port. It 25 hasn't been talked about for two hours. Now, 117 2 again, that might have part of yesterday's 3 meeting. 4 But my concern is, I just heard, 5 well, one of the attractive things that 6 casinos is going to generate $30 million 7 dollars of revenue for the city. It's 8 displacing, it's not new, it's displacing 9 other revenues that existed on the water front 10 at one time. And if you assess that, you 11 probably find out there was $30 million or 12 more. 13 My concern is right now when I 14 listen to the Planning Commission, and I can't 15 pretend to know about city planning and state 16 planning, okay, I know how to negotiate a 17 contract, I know about the impacts of what 18 you're considering doing will have on what I 19 see is the elimination of working class 20 families along the river water district. 21 Our members have a right, if not an 22 obligation, to be part of that commission that 23 helps develop water front property for this 24 reason, they've already invested their money, 25 okay. They're the lowest paid longshoremen on 118 2 the East Coast. They make $40,000 to $50,000 3 less than every other longshoreman from Maine 4 to Texas and including the West Coast. They 5 have the lowest paid pensions on the East 6 Coast. That was all done, okay, with the 7 attempt to keep cargo coming in through the 8 port of Philadelphia. 9 Now, at one time this port had 10 3.7 million man hours, and through automation 11 it was reduced to 1.2 million man hours. 12 Through the sacrifices that these people have 13 made it's now back up to 200 million man 14 hours. That's I.L.A. member hours alone. We 15 are the smallest component, believe it or not, 16 of the logistical chain of moving cargo from a 17 ship across this country. 18 Give you an example. There's 19 approximately 400,000 containers that go 20 through Packer Avenue Marine Terminal. Every 21 one of those containers is taken out and every 22 one of those containers can stay. That's 23 8,000 truckloads a year. Okay. So think of 24 how many truck drivers are involved in that. 25 Every one of those containers are stripped and 119 2 stuffed, sometimes long distance, sometimes 3 they're in their own immediate area. How many 4 warehouse people are in there? 5 Those are the jobs, okay, that were 6 created years ago. They did a change now to 7 create the environment where we can limit it 8 to Packer Avenue Marine Terminal. 9 Tioga Marine Terminal, which is 10 north of the Ben Franklin Bridge, now has a 11 serious obstacle because the new vessels can't 12 get under the Ben Franklin Bridge, so that's 13 been eliminated. 14 My concern is, when do we start 15 talking to you about how to replace not 16 displace those who took industrial type jobs. 17 Because what I understand is that Philadelphia 18 still consists of a lot of blue collar people, 19 okay. It's not just, you know, the people who 20 are educating themselves and moving into our 21 area because they find Penn's Landing 22 attractive or Society Hill attractive. 23 I've had many disagreements over the 24 years with Bill Keller. Today I sit here and 25 I'm on the same page with him because he said 120 2 something I've been saying a long time ago but 3 never been recognized a long time ago, for the 4 industry to survive you're going to have 5 residential, you're going to have commercial, 6 didn't never think that you were going to have 7 casinos, okay, on the Delaware River. 8 Now, what I'm going to say is a 9 suggestion to our state officials. I 10 understand, I appreciate all your efforts. I 11 mean that again sincerely. One way to balance 12 this out might be what they did in the West 13 Coast, okay. And I looked into it because 14 years ago I had to try to do some more 15 research. But they introduced a bill when 16 they started to change the San Francisco water 17 front into a commercial area, they introduced 18 a bill that said for every dollar that went 19 into making an industrial site a commercial 20 site you have to put an equal dollar into the 21 industry. 22 All of our kids are not going to go 23 to college. They're still going to need those 24 industrial based jobs. Something like that 25 has to be considered. And I'm asking the 121 2 legislators to consider drafting some type of, 3 although it might be a simplified version, me 4 just throwing it out here today, but it might 5 help balance this other bill that you're 6 concerned about and the impact that it would 7 have on it. Okay. 8 So Flip already asked, Why isn't 9 labor involved? Labor is not just a partner 10 who negotiates on behalf of working class 11 people, we've taken a different step here. We 12 actually had went out and analyzed what it 13 takes to bring cargo into this facility. 14 And once we did what's called cost 15 per ton analysis, we actually went back to the 16 membership and we said, Here's what it's going 17 to take, this is what's going to be required 18 of you to bring that cargo into the water 19 front. And they did that. 20 So based on their sacrifice and 21 based on their investment, okay, and based on 22 the stake of the 2000 pensioner bills along 23 this area, they should be involved in the 24 Planning Commission because they still live in 25 the area that you're all representing. 122 2 MR. DOUGHERTY: Jim is an 3 International Vice-President who grew up in 4 the Pennsport/Whitman area, International 5 Vice-President of the I.L.A. 6 I'll get you copies of what went on 7 yesterday too. You know, and there's still 8 some of the information flying around. 9 MR. RUBEN: Could I just say 10 something briefly? 11 MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes, sir. Matt. 12 MR. RUBEN: We get occupied a lot 13 with really, really, really local development 14 issues in this city, and I guess other cities. 15 And we sometimes forget that we're -- a lot of 16 us are unconsciously living at a time when 17 there's a religion about urban development and 18 that religion says -- and it's a false 19 religion -- that industry is dead and that 20 what cities are supposed to do is develop as 21 hospitality destination entertainment centers. 22 And while that is certainly a major component 23 of modern cities, it's not the only thing. 24 And I think that, as I said 25 yesterday, this has always been a working city 123 2 and that we need to maintain our mixed use 3 certainly for employment and jobs and good 4 jobs that are -- you know, we should encourage 5 all jobs, but I think it's fair to say that a 6 lot of the industrial jobs offer better 7 benefits and wages and a more dignified 8 working experience than some of the more 9 low-end service jobs, including at least some 10 of the jobs that the casinos will bring. And 11 I think we need to stand up for those. 12 And I think that we have an 13 opportunity when so many other kinds of 14 manufacturing have left Philadelphia and are 15 difficult, if not impossible, to bring back, 16 we have viable current thriving type of 17 industry here and it would be shameful of us 18 as a city and a state to discourage that 19 because of this fake idea that all 20 manufacturing is dead. And that it's not 21 fashionable and it's not passe. 22 And you're probably not going to see 23 photos of longshoremen in Philadelphia Style 24 magazine. But it doesn't mean that they're 25 not equal members of this community and that 124 2 they're not part of the thriving economic base 3 of this city. 4 MR. DOUGHERTY: If it wasn't, I 5 wouldn't be here. 6 MR. PAYLOR: John, if I just may add 7 one more thing to that? 8 If you look at the competing ports, 9 New York, they have a pretty kind of smart 10 industrial and style wise in New York. Go 11 down to Norfolk, Virginia, which is a little 12 less stylish, okay, they're spending not 13 millions, but billions of dollars in this 14 industry because, as you say, other 15 manufacturing jobs are disappearing, okay. 16 But the projections are that cargo is going to 17 multiply 300 percent over the next 15 years, 18 definitely multiply, double in the next three 19 years. 20 MR. DOUGHERTY: What we're going to 21 do is we're going to take a little break here 22 in about two minutes. Any questions 23 concerning the Planning Commission. Then 24 we're going to keep Ron around a little bit to 25 talk about the process of development from the 125 2 large developers' point of view. I have a 3 couple hands that want to follow up on that. 4 And just that to finish up our 5 conversation with our friends from the I.L.A. 6 here, just so you know, conversation about 7 this type of input. I don't believe if we 8 didn't have this little symposium in place, 9 and the object was some of the neighborhood 10 and city's control over our own development, 11 we still wouldn't have been able to come up 12 with the fact that that location of roads and 13 things like that which will split up a lot of 14 your work forces. 15 You have two hands. Gentleman right 16 there in the sweater. Then I will go back to 17 Mark Stier who hasn't had the floor yet. And 18 then we'll wrap it up with Rene. Then we'll 19 break and then we'll have a little discussion 20 with casinos. 21 MR. GOLDEN: My name is Henry 22 Golden, I work in the I.L.A. Look, I just 23 want everybody to listen to this, and a lot of 24 my friends know this, I'm a gambler. But 25 besides that, and I'm going to shock a lot of 126 2 them, I love my city. 3 And I'm going to tell you something, 4 I and a lot of people who are in this room or 5 who know people on a whim will drive an hour, 6 hour and-a-half to Atlantic City to go 7 gambling. Now, you're going to put casinos 8 ten, 15 minutes away from my house. You know 9 what this is going to do? This is going to 10 cause wives and husbands to blow their 11 mortgage payments. It's going to destroy 12 marriages. It's going to destroy savings for 13 children. 14 And as far as that $30 million goes, 15 these casino owners don't give a shit about 16 thanking the community. Go to Atlantic City. 17 You got billion dollar casino, beautiful 18 billion dollars buildings, you go a block away 19 there's homeless people starving on Pacific 20 Avenue. So that's how much they care about 21 people. 22 So I just want you to think about 23 this, this is going to destroy what good 24 neighborhoods we got left in this city. We 25 have 300-something plus murders a year. This 127 2 city in certain areas is horrible. We only 3 have the strong points left to help build up 4 the horrible sections. 5 So if you're going to put casinos 6 here, like I said, it's going to destroy 7 marriages, it's going to destroy future 8 savings for children, it's going to ruin our 9 city. And I just wanted you to know that. 10 MR. DOUGHERTY: Yesterday we had 11 some concerns about the social issues, some of 12 the family members of the gentlemen who kept 13 it are in the audience today. And right now 14 we're just trying to not even get to the 15 point -- the answer so far to us has been, 16 Hey, well, we'll throw money at it. We're 17 trying to make sure we get all these 18 guidelines on where they're at and how they 19 get built, the safeguards, before we even get 20 to the social concerns. 21 Mr. Stier. 22 MR. STIER: I'm Mark Stier, 23 Neighborhood Networks. 24 Three quick comments. One is, one 25 of the problems with 862 is there's no reason 128 2 to think that this imperial viceroy, as Matt 3 calls it, is going to be concerned at all 4 about our industrial jobs or jobs in the port 5 and the piece that, controls of the city. And 6 people in the city have the ability to go 7 lobby our local officials. This is creating a 8 government entirely out of touch with the 9 people who want to control it. 10 Second point is, Representative 11 Taylor said he wishes Chestnut Hill would get 12 involved in this fight. I just want you to 13 know that my organization is opposing 862. 14 We're starting a lobbying campaign in the next 15 couple of days. We have lots of folks in 16 Chestnut Hill and Mt. Airy and we're 17 contacting all of our State Representatives. 18 Third point I want to make quickly 19 is, if the city is really serious about 20 stopping this, lawsuit is one avenue to take. 21 It seems to me another avenue to take is for 22 the city to pass an ordinance that says it 23 will not provide water, sewer, fire 24 protection, police protection or access to the 25 streets for any part of the city that the city 129 2 does not have regulatory control over. You 3 know, if they want to get people to these 4 casinos, let them fly them in with 5 helicopters. 6 MR. DOUGHERTY: Rene. 7 MS. GOODWIN: I want to in 8 particular -- I want to thank all the 9 panelists and I want to thank all of you for 10 being here, there should be thousands of us 11 here, thousands of us. 12 But to the three Representatives in 13 particular, all right, now we've had two days 14 or a day and-a-half of learning lots of 15 things, some of which we knew, a lot of which 16 we didn't know. I don't want to leave here -- 17 a couple of my colleagues who have worked for 18 the coalition here like Chris Mett, who 19 devoted a lot of time and effort, to Ed 20 Kirlin. And we don't want to leave here with 21 information and feeling hopeless and helpless. 22 So what can we do to help you help us? Please 23 help us. 24 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: You could do 25 what constituents and citizens are supposed to 130 2 do. We've got, as you can see, we've known -- 3 this has been a learning experience and a 4 great experience for everybody that's been 5 here. But if you take notice, no press, you 6 haven't seen any press on this. You haven't 7 seen press one time say that 862 is going to 8 destroy everything we're trying to build. 9 Call the press, call your local 10 Representatives, call us, call your state 11 Senators. People have to know that this 12 cannot just go by the way it is. Call the 13 leadership in both the House and the Senate. 14 Believe it or not, I mean, when they 15 were closing down the Navy Yard one of the, I 16 don't want to say tricks, one of the tricks we 17 used were we got a dozen cell phones, and back 18 then they were the thing -- wasn't a common 19 thing. And we broke down every worker in the 20 Navy Yard and we broke down their Congressman, 21 their State Senator and their State 22 Representative, and we had them call right 23 there, we had guys go around on the job site, 24 Here, Call. They made them call right then 25 and there. 131 2 When I walked up to Harrisburg they 3 were screaming, What are you doing? Stop 4 having them call me. Why are you doing that? 5 I said, I'm doing it because their losing 6 their jobs, that's why we're doing it. It is 7 effective. I mean, it's just a good old, 8 which people have gotten away from, just 9 picking up the phone, calling your 10 Representatives and saying, What are you 11 doing? You're killing us. You're doing the 12 opposite of what your job is. You're supposed 13 to be out there helping us and protecting us. 14 And according to what you're doing here in 15 this bill, you're hurting us. It's effective. 16 If you could just go out there and 17 just those blast e-mails, I mean, I'm not a 18 tech guy, that works, it's effective. We've 19 got to do it. We're not going to get 20 cooperation from the press. They're going to 21 ignore us. We've had, which is a decent 22 amount of people the last two days, of course 23 not enough, not enough that we want, spread 24 the word, we don't have much time. We're 25 going to have to go back and fight this 132 2 starting Monday, tomorrow morning we're going 3 to go and fight this. 4 MS. GOODWIN: Thank you. 5 MR. DOUGHERTY: Can I handle if we 6 have any questions relevant to the Planning 7 Commission? Then we're going -- and 8 Mr. Greenberg. We're going to break for 15 9 minutes and then jump back in. And then we'll 10 talk a little bit about gaming, we had some 11 cancellations, we'll talk about that. I'm not 12 so sure that's a bad thing as of right now. I 13 think it means you were effective. I think 14 you were effective yesterday and asked the 15 tough questions that needed tough answers and 16 when you don't have answers, you don't show 17 up. Okay. 18 So questions relevant? 19 Yes, Christina. 20 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can I just make 21 one really quick comment in response to 22 Representative Keller? 23 Right before the Senate voted on the 24 bill Hallwatch was very kind in setting up a 25 fax thing where individuals could fax their 133 2 comments and requests not to pass this 3 legislation. The Senate obviously ignored 4 those requests from the over 300 residents of 5 Philadelphia requesting that they do not strip 6 zoning. They voted 50 to zero, it was 7 unanimous. So it doesn't feel like -- I mean, 8 people are doing things, they are trying to 9 reach out and talk to out legislators and it 10 doesn't feel like they're listening. So I 11 don't know how effective that is. 12 MR. DOUGHERTY: Well, listen, I'll 13 handle that one. They listen. 90 percent of 14 your elected officials listen. Some have 15 become above even public approach. That's why 16 you have election processes. 17 MR. LEVINS: John, if I could just 18 follow up one comment to what Representative 19 Keller said. And people lose sight of the 20 fact that with respect to the investors on 21 these casinos, there's a lot of people in the 22 background who have made their fortunes, if 23 you will, in Philadelphia who are investors. 24 And people like Richard Sprague, people like 25 Daniel Keating who built the Hyatt and then 134 2 did the stadiums. Our former City Solicitor 3 Kent Jagrio, I butchered that name. Former 4 Supreme Court Justice in Pennsylvania Bill 5 Lamb. I think the head of the Parking 6 Authority. There's a number of people out 7 there. 8 And I'm going to urge the Mayor to 9 kind of put the spotlight on them to think 10 that, Hey, you've made your wealth in this 11 city and maybe you should support our efforts 12 to, you know, address these significant issues 13 and failures with respect to this Senate bill. 14 And I think if the Mayor comes out swinging 15 with those people he may have an ally that has 16 a lot of influence up in Harrisburg. 17 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: I think Rich 18 makes a point that probably has not been made. 19 And maybe it is, people think that the casinos 20 are coming to town. They're going to be owned 21 by people in Philadelphia. I think it's only 22 Pinnacle that's a publicly traded company. 23 Other than that, I believe the casinos are 24 only coming in to operate. They're going to 25 own somewhere, you know, 30 percent. These 135 2 casinos are owned by individual people in the 3 city of Philadelphia, that's who owns it, not 4 the casinos, they're the operators. 5 So Richie, I guess that's a point 6 that has not been out and I guess it should be 7 out. 8 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Absolutely. 9 The folks coming in who are owners are not 10 going to have like cowboy hats and getting off 11 planes from Nevada and things, it's local. 12 But I think whatever, in fact, in Rene's 13 question, whatever we can do with the 14 mainstream media and our local papers that 15 would get beyond the city of Philadelphia and 16 penetrate to the leaders that this is backroom 17 dealing that is damaging without -- you know, 18 at least in the House we have to convince our 19 leadership that they don't want to have this 20 on their hands and on their records and just 21 pass this. 22 And the difficulty is is that if it 23 pertains to Philadelphia people just close 24 their ears, they don't really care. Sometimes 25 they works to our advantage and sometimes it 136 2 doesn't. But in this case it will not. 3 So we've had numerous press 4 conferences, meetings with editorial boards 5 and things and you've seen very little in the 6 papers still about the negative effects of 7 this version of 862. So whatever all of you 8 can do to get your opinion out through those 9 mainstream outlets, that would be very 10 helpful. 11 MR. DOUGHERTY: One of the questions 12 that was submitted yesterday on a card was 13 that when we make the packets available could 14 we break down the ownership of the casinos. 15 So even though that's online we'll put it in 16 hard copy and make sure that that's part of 17 the packets on the follow-up to this 18 symposium. So you'll have access to that. 19 This gentleman right up front has 20 been here for both days, this is the first 21 time he raised his hand. And then we'll thank 22 Mr. Knapton and Mr. Greenberg. 23 MR.HIM: Actually, she answered the 24 question, how do we get it out to the people? 25 You said 600,000 fliers were out and this is 137 2 what we got? I mean a lot of people don't 3 even know of this stuff. So maybe we have a 4 Million Man March to Harrisburg and they can 5 hear us. But how we get it to the people 6 through the media is going to be key. 7 MR. DOUGHERTY: Small developer in 8 the neighborhood turns around and says, How 9 come I have to pay to hook up water and they 10 don't? Simple question. Simple question and 11 we're going to let you know after we break 12 here, that people don't want to answer it. 13 Kevin Greenberg, Dave Knapton, thank 14 you. How about a little hand for -- 15 Take a break. We'll be back in ten 16 minutes. 17 (Short break.) 18 MR. DOUGHERTY: Again, I'd like to 19 thank everyone for participating this morning. 20 The fact that we had community groups and 21 activists and just flat out neighbors from all 22 over the water front today, along with our, 23 some of our union leadership that have some 24 serious questions about, you know, keeping the 25 port vital as a key to industry in this 138 2 community. 3 We had City Planning here this 4 morning, along with part of the Mayor's legal 5 team, to give us a little insight into their 6 views of Penn Praxis and exactly what was 7 going on. I think there was some interesting 8 information come out of that. 9 As we wind down here I can tell you 10 from my own person that I am really excited 11 about what developed and the amount of input 12 and the high quality of questions. And I 13 believe that not only has this symposium 14 achieved its initial goals, but I think that 15 it's going to go way beyond that. I think our 16 follow-up and our, you know, the information 17 we've gathered and the questions that have 18 been submitted. 19 In fact, I have one question and I 20 I'm glad that they signed this so it didn't 21 look like I wrote it, it said, Please address 22 the issues of campaign contributions by casino 23 interests to state legislatures. Have any 24 financial disclosure statements revealed PACs, 25 et cetera, formed by developers, land 139 2 speculators, et cetera? Pat Lowe, 427 West 3 Jewitt Street. And we will put that in the 4 packet, we will follow-up with that. 5 We've had about 25 questions 6 submitted to us throughout the end of the 7 session yesterday and early this morning. And 8 they're all questions that might have only 9 been partially answered or not answered at 10 all. And we think we're doing really well 11 here in this little two-day symposium. But 12 there's still that much out there to be 13 digested and discussed. So I appreciate Pat 14 for that. 15 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Just for the 16 record, the questions about contributions from 17 gaming entities or investors, they are 18 completely prohibited from doing that. The 19 thorny part becomes, as we said in a prior 20 session, a lot of the owners of the sites 21 throughout, up and down the river, are not 22 foreigners, they're not from different states, 23 they're from here in Philadelphia. And who 24 all had prominent roles in many, many business 25 institutions and politics prior to their 140 2 involvement with their gaming interests. 3 So while they can't contribute now, 4 many of them were, to be right up front, very 5 active in the political contribution business 6 prior to that. But since they are investors 7 they can no longer do that. And they don't. 8 I don't know if that solves the problem, but 9 they don't. 10 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Just another 11 way they're saving money. 12 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: You can add 13 that to the list. 14 MR. DOUGHERTY: I appreciate it. 15 What we'd like to do here is, this 16 afternoon we were supposed to have two of our 17 four casinos. Now we're not going to put some 18 empty chair up there with a casino name on it. 19 This has been completely productive. 20 And the initial response, we have 21 one of the local consultants here, okay, but 22 there has not been included on behalf of the 23 entity that she represents or anyone here, she 24 just stopped in to digest what was going on. 25 So I'm not going to ask Barbara Grant, who 141 2 does some work for Pinnacle, to do anything 3 other than acknowledge the fact that she was 4 here and the people that were being made 5 contact with were not Barbara. 6 We had some understanding and 7 initial commitments that Pinnacle and 8 Riverwalk would have interest coming here and 9 participating. Initially we had Foxwoods and 10 the Sugarhouse tell us that it really wasn't, 11 in fact, quote, unquote, to their best 12 interests. 13 And I was surprised at that type of 14 response. Because I had no idea until I 15 walked in here this morning or yesterday 16 morning other than a very productive 17 neighborhood driven agenda, you know, any 18 other topics of conversation. You have driven 19 the symposium. That you have driven the 20 follow-ups. 21 So this afternoon I believe that on 22 one hand I would have appreciated having 23 someone from all four casinos here just to 24 hear our concerns. 25 The process has moved rather 142 2 quickly. You know, I will again speak in my 3 role as Pennsport President. I have been 4 approached for one or two meetings, that's it. 5 And the questions, I guess it's a mentality 6 inside the gaming industry, but it's sort of 7 everything is sort of if you do this, we can 8 do that for you. 9 One of my simple questions were 10 early on prior to the smoking ban and the 11 Senate bill 862, my questions were, Hey, we 12 have a lot of little community establishments. 13 Well, you're going to be giving away food and 14 beverage to start up, how does that affect -- 15 and for no better word I used the one or two 16 places, For Pete's Sake is something that 17 transcends a lot of neighborhoods -- how does 18 that affect that? How can we talk about that? 19 You know the sewer problem. I told 20 you I don't care what title you have, what's 21 on your resume, water in the basement is the 22 same for everybody, okay. The amount of water 23 that's been in my basement and my neighbor's 24 basement is ridiculous. And I'm not believing 25 anything the Water Department says about 143 2 global warming, okay. It's the one pipe 3 system. 4 When we get to the more serious of 5 concerns, the evasion. You know, the traffic, 6 when you leave here today if you really want 7 to see firsthand, make a left, go down 8 Delaware Avenue between the Reed 9 Street/Washington exit and the Ikea store, you 10 can count on being in traffic for 45 minutes. 11 The traffic no longer is just on 12 Delaware Avenue, it's on Front Street and 2nd 13 Street. If you decide to wander down Front 14 Street and 2nd Street, take a look at the 15 license plates of the cars in front of you. 16 Ikea is truly that field of dreams, if you 17 build it, people will come. The issues were 18 simple. They were quality of life 19 neighborhood issues. 20 Since gaming has been rumored in 21 that specific location we at the Pennsport 22 Civic Association have averaged three to four 23 hundred people at every meeting. Not 50, not 24 120. No exaggeration. Every meeting we have 25 two, three, four hundred people. I mean it 144 2 has driven a lot of interest. All we wanted 3 was answers. 4 We've had -- and leading up until 5 today, one of the reasons why I'm really not 6 frustrated or annoyed or even upset, is that 7 we've listened to the DEP, we've listened to 8 the Delaware Valley Planning, we've listened 9 to PennDOT, we've listened to the Mayor's 10 office, everyone told us that it basically has 11 been a cavalier approach at best. You know, 12 here's our study, you know, we can generate 13 this amount of money. 14 Again, for full disclosure, I get 15 paid by the building, you know, we build 16 buildings. But in this specific case there's 17 a lot of locations where they should be built. 18 In the backyard of a neighborhood that has 19 these issues and concerns not answered is not 20 one of them. 21 Now, again, I'm here as my role as 22 Pennsport Civic Association so I am not 23 frustrated or annoyed because I don't believe 24 they could have told us anything today because 25 they're not telling the authorities in which 145 2 they're going to reside. They're not telling 3 the DEP, okay, how they're going to handle 4 that. They want control of the riparian 5 rights, they want to build the buildings 6 outside of Philadelphia code. 7 And by the way, the Philadelphia 8 code is much stricter than state code. They 9 think that in certain cases you can come down, 10 you form some non-profit, you throw a million 11 dollars at somebody, you make somebody the 12 Executive Director and say, By the way, you 13 know, at the end of the day if there's some 14 money left you can take care of social woes 15 that are affected or created. We sit here and 16 we ask questions. 17 And the land wraps that are 18 associated. I'm surprised. I'm not a rookie 19 to the legislative process. Usually you hide 20 the big wraps like on Page 30 of a 40-page 21 bill. That was on Page 2 or 3 where it says 22 you get the continuous piece of land. I guess 23 people were so excited they figured they could 24 just run wild on the water front. 25 For all intents and purposes I just 146 2 wanted to ask somebody, Hey, when it was laid 3 out to me in the Civic Association a year 4 and-a-half ago it was a little parlor that was 5 going to bring some restaurants and some 6 development. It was going to fit in to a much 7 bigger picture. Not the King of Prussia Mall 8 South on the water front. 9 This is the first time I took a 10 little personal privilege. Take a look out at 11 the water. Take a look from here. It's a 12 beautiful building. That's a beautiful river. 13 You know, like I said, and I've heard people 14 tell stories, I'll give you my family. Okay. 15 My grandparents came from Ireland, 16 they came here, my grandfather was a 17 longshoreman, was lucky enough to become a 18 State Legislator on the one side of the 19 family. 20 My mom's family came here, they got 21 off a boat, they went to work at the sugar 22 house. Eleven of my mother's aunts and uncles 23 lived in a two bedroom house on the 300 block 24 of Cross Street. I was lucky enough to raise 25 my baby in that house. 147 2 So you see where it's a little bit 3 different? It's not political. It's more 4 personal. Okay. I have my mother being the 5 only -- because she had no father -- being the 6 only young kid living with eleven of her aunts 7 and uncles. And the old days until you got 8 your own house, when you came over you all 9 stayed someplace. 10 And you get two weeks vacation from 11 the sugar house. One, would they would go out 12 and have a week long binge someplace down the 13 shore. Or if you couldn't squeeze in there, 14 just in the neighborhood. But you did nothing 15 but just visit all the friendly establishments 16 in the neighborhood. Then the other week they 17 would all stay and paint the house and redo 18 the roof and, because that's what they did in 19 Ireland before they came over. 20 So that house there, it's a little 21 bit more personal when it comes to that. 22 So I'm not expecting somebody -- 23 and, you know, State Representative Taylor 24 made a great point. We're not getting cowboys 25 getting off from Nevada bringing the casinos 148 2 here, these are people in our own 3 neighborhoods, these are people that have 4 grown up in the same environment we have. So 5 it should be real easy to show up and talk to 6 people that you've made money off of. 7 You know, you got lawyers and 8 investment bankers and friends of mine in the 9 industry. I mean, they all got two pieces, 10 three pieces of these things. Okay. So I 11 mean, I think it would have been relatively 12 easy to show up here. And I think that it's 13 absolutely disrespectful, but it ain't going 14 to upset me. Okay. I think that it's 15 absolutely, as you have been saying all along, 16 arrogant. 17 REPRESENTATIVE LEDERER: And 18 obscene. 19 MR. DOUGHERTY: Obscene. 20 And then you understand why you get 21 bills like 862, because it's easier to pump an 22 extra million dollars into some committee to 23 put trees on certain blocks than it is to 24 answer a question on why you need that extra 25 land and why is somebody taking a good peek 149 2 at, you know, the whiskey yard and other 3 places to move big box development so that you 4 could have future casino development. 5 We don't want the initial proposal 6 without safeguards for the neighbors. So we 7 most definitely do not want someone who's just 8 coming to, you know, continue to steamroll us 9 and say, Hey, sue me. 10 As we're going to lead into Ron 11 Patterson, he's even told us, in certain cases 12 we don't even have a judicial recourse here. 13 I mean in certain entities, and not just with 14 the state level, but some of the other casino 15 points, as for the first time some people 16 followed up, he pointed out earlier there are 17 specific venues and pieces of business that 18 just need Planning Commission and City Council 19 approval. And you really have no checks and 20 balances on that. 21 So that's why these symposiums are 22 needed. And that's why I really appreciate 23 all the people from the community to partake 24 and these three legislators who have admitted 25 that they had no idea early on the magnitude 150 2 of what went on and how they stood here. And 3 in some cases have put themselves at the 4 forefront of future political discourse 5 because of this. 6 So I want to thank you. I think the 7 least that the casinos could have done was 8 show up here and talk to us. So that, you 9 know, when you get the International 10 Vice-President of the water front saying, Hey, 11 look, we expected to move north not have you 12 move south into our business. They could hear 13 that from him. Or the neighborhood group that 14 says, Hey, we want green space. 15 We know it's not easy. I mean, we 16 had the Water Department flat out tell us, you 17 know what, the one pipe system doesn't work, 18 we're probably going to outgrow it, but with 19 all the little streets and no money we don't 20 see any reason why we should handle it at this 21 present time. We'll just increase the amount 22 of sludge that the city facilities that handle 23 that stuff handle. You know, we'll hope that 24 the new places where we can open up bigger 25 pipe, we will. But basically, there was no 151 2 answer for Mike O'Donnell who stood here and 3 said he had six floods in 18 months between 12 4 and 14 inches of water. 5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Sewage. 6 MR. DOUGHERTY: Sewage. That's a 7 health issue, as I stated earlier. 8 So on one hand you're paying taxes 9 and you're being told you can't handle that. 10 On the other hand you're being told, who's 11 going to give control of that away in the 12 backyard? But we're going to let them hook up 13 to the water for free and not have to live by 14 any controls. 15 So I think it's disrespectful. But 16 I'll tell you what, it also proves that you've 17 been successful. It also proves the point 18 that in this room here -- and as you know, 19 every five minute break that we took was 20 loaded with discussion about the topics at 21 hand today. Nobody said -- look, I haven't 22 had an Eagles conversation yet. Okay. 23 Conversations about water, about 24 neighborhoods, about the road, about the -- 25 you know. 152 2 And it blows my mind, is that I've 3 asked the one question for a year and-a-half, 4 where -- I said I'm all for the fruit and 5 produce terminal movement, where is the 6 traffic going? And yesterday for the first 7 time we were told, it's all going on Delaware 8 Avenue, John. You know, there's really no 9 other avenue, we're going to build a road, a 10 temporary road, hopefully a permanent bridge, 11 at the back end and wrap it around to Delaware 12 Avenue. 13 It might not be politically correct 14 to take it down Broad Street. After this 15 symposium it's no longer politically correct 16 to take it down Delaware Avenue. 17 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: I don't know 18 if John is not upset, but I guess I'm the one 19 that's been upset all weekend. I think we 20 should be upset. And I think we should be 21 angry and I think we should tell them, This is 22 the community getting together to ask them 23 questions. Two right off the get-go said no, 24 two said yes. 25 What happened? They heard what 153 2 happened yesterday, that we're asking tough 3 questions, we're getting good answers and now 4 they don't show up. I think that's just a 5 precursor to what's going to happen when they 6 get into our neighborhoods. 7 They're saying they're going to be 8 good neighbors. Here's their opportunity to 9 show it. And not one of them showed up. I 10 think we should be a little more angry than we 11 are. That's not what this is about. They 12 have to answer to the neighborhoods. I guess 13 they're confident that 862 is going through 14 the way it is now and they don't have to 15 answer to anybody. 16 I'm not sure I'm that confident that 17 862 is going to go through in its current 18 form. And maybe they will have to come back 19 and answer us. And maybe we should remember 20 that they had a chance to come and they 21 didn't. 22 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Thank you, 23 Bill. I would just tend to agree with John, 24 that based on what happened yesterday, if you 25 don't have the answers, you don't show up to 154 2 reveal that you don't. 3 And specifically, that is, when 4 PennDOT spent three hours here yesterday 5 morning basically outlining the fact that 6 there is absolutely no planning, they're not 7 engaged, there's no discussions, they're not 8 ready to do anything to accommodate traffic. 9 That there is 500 projects underfunded as 10 there is. I don't know how any representative 11 from any casino could answer that question, no 12 matter what plans they have. 13 Equally as true is the response by 14 the Philadelphia Water Department and the 15 Department of Environmental Protection. And 16 they said that they're not engaged at all on 17 the very pieces of the application that were 18 due to be required about how to handle sewage, 19 storm water and drinking water. 20 And for the Water Department to say 21 that if 862 as it now stands goes into effect 22 they will have absolutely no say to oversee 23 anything that the casinos do with those 24 connections. And that, I think, was as 25 frightening to us as anything else, if that's 155 2 the case. 3 Equally, this morning we heard a 4 very good discussion from the City Solicitor's 5 Department about all the other meanings of 862 6 and particularly that the spin that the 7 commercial entertainment district added to 862 8 is good government and it's going to be a 9 better version of that bill is simply not 10 true, considering all the other provisions 11 that were put in that bill. All the other 12 provisions in that bill that we've talked 13 about ad nauseam completely trump the 14 commercial entertainment district provisions 15 that were put into the legislation. 16 So I don't think it's any wonder 17 that they're not sitting here. And it wasn't 18 until quarter after 9:00 this morning that we 19 found out that they weren't going to be here. 20 So I agree with you, John, if you 21 don't have the answer, you're not going to 22 show up to reveal that. 23 REPRESENTATIVE LEDERER: I only want 24 to say that part of the propaganda of the 25 casinos appeared in our local Fishtown 156 2 newspapers, full page ads, Come to the 3 Fishtown Recreation Center, whatever night it 4 was last week, To fill out your application 5 for casino employment. 6 We don't know where the licenses are 7 going but you can get your application at 8 Fishtown Recreation Center. 9 MR. DOUGHERTY: Rene, if you 10 don't -- I just want to -- we'll take 11 questions in a minute. 12 What I'd like to do is introduce Ron 13 Patterson. Ron is here to give us an update 14 on the private sector's point of view. He was 15 also very helpful having him active in a 16 community group and talking about the ups and 17 downs of dealing with an entity as large as 18 the Post Office in a community that he's 19 involved in. 20 We had Carl Primavera scheduled and 21 Carl lost his dad last night, which we keep 22 him in your prayers, and we'll send that. 23 But Ron, on short notice, I really 24 appreciate you coming. 25 Can you talk about, you know, what's 157 2 driving this market? The water front in 3 general, private development. And if you have 4 anything to add from, you were here long 5 enough this morning to hear some of our 6 conversations and see the direction that this 7 public forum is going. 8 MR. PATTERSON: You have to remind 9 me I'm still under oath. 10 MR. DOUGHERTY: You're still under 11 oath. We won't ask anything about Klehr 12 Harrison, I promise. 13 MR. PATTERSON: Just to comment on a 14 few things that were raised. 15 The Water Department and the issue 16 about the storm water and the sewer. And 17 maybe it was explained yesterday, but I wasn't 18 here. You know, there's the theory that you 19 have storm water which could be handled by a 20 separate pipe, and sewage, which is everything 21 from your house, your sinks, your toilets, to 22 go into a different pipe. 23 And some communities, townships in 24 Pennsylvania and New Jersey handle them 25 differently in terms of how they are treated. 158 2 The sewage may go into a sewage treatment 3 plant. Storm water sometimes is allowed to be 4 generated and discharged into streams or the 5 river provided it meets certain discharge 6 standards. 7 The Water Department's answer now 8 that the system is being at over capacity is 9 to say, Well, if you're a new developer 10 consider this, consider putting green roofs on 11 your roofs. Which means if you have a flat 12 roof you can put certain amount of inches with 13 dirt and grass and therefore the theory is 14 that when it rains -- and it does work, I 15 think it's up to 50 percent -- that your water 16 will be retained on the roof and eventually 17 evaporate. So it therefore doesn't put a 18 burden onto the sewer system. 19 And the second thing they've been 20 doing, and this one and two is in lieu of 21 ripping up the streets and putting in larger 22 pipes, is to say, okay, we want you to put a 23 detention basin or if you have no land to put 24 in a pond to grab all the water and let it out 25 at a slower rate, is to put tanks underneath 159 2 the ground to capture water and then let it go 3 into the sewer system. 4 One project we worked on at Broad 5 and South, the answer was that we had to put 6 125-foot long, four-foot in diameter pipe 7 beneath the sidewalk into which all the storm 8 water would be captured and retained until it 9 was discharged into the system. 10 So I don't know if that's the right 11 fix, but that's what they're doing in lieu of 12 updating the sewer system. 13 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Ron, just 14 let me comment that under 862 they don't have 15 to listen to the Water Department's 16 recommendations or restrictions. 17 MR. PATTERSON: Right. So who 18 knows what -- I mean, consider how much and 19 how many people will be there, what demand 20 that would put on the system. It could 21 continue the flooding. 22 Now, I've heard flooding happening 23 here at 100 Mifflin and the like. Where I 24 live down by the stadiums we have the same 25 thing. At certain times there are back-ups in 160 2 some of the homes in Packer Park. Which you 3 think that's not in the direction where the 4 water is going, but yeah, it is, it's going 5 towards a different direction there. So we're 6 feeling the same impact. 7 And I don't know, if somebody had to 8 do a calculation, I bet they probably would 9 justify its own treatment system on site with 10 the amount of people that would be there. But 11 we're not seeing those numbers, we have no way 12 to engage it or handicap it. 13 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: There were 14 estimates yesterday that they would have in 15 each site between 6 and 9 million people 16 visiting a year at each site. 17 MR. PATTERSON: And I think -- are 18 they proposing overnight stay there, hotel or 19 anything? 20 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: They didn't 21 say, they just said that they would have 22 between 6 and 9 million people per year 23 visiting over the course of the year. 24 MR. PATTERSON: Well, at the very 25 least you take a toilet flush, which could be 161 2 one to three to five gallons. If you add in 3 where you have hotel stays or overnight where 4 you have kitchens and sinks and bathrooms and 5 tubs, you're up to maybe 100, 200 gallons a 6 day per room. And that's really what the 7 formula is. So it's just staggering to think 8 that if you times that by 9 million what the 9 gallonage would be. 10 REPRESENTATIVE LEDERER: Don't 11 forget the 3,000 condos. 12 MR. PATTERSON: That's true. 13 So, you know, I represent developers 14 and we're result oriented. And, you know, we 15 like -- we're hired to give people their 16 development permits. Whether it's good or 17 bad, the River Front Moratorium, because of 18 riparian rights, put the brakes on a lot of 19 large projects. And maybe it's a good thing 20 because some of these issues weren't 21 considered and they surely weren't -- if they 22 were, which we did have to go through Water 23 Department and Streets Department review -- 24 did not factor in the casino impact. 25 We did go through a whole litany of 162 2 reviews and approvals. And I have to say that 3 the city agencies are very well staffed to the 4 most part and they're very smart. And we do 5 take our plans through Water Department for 6 review for sewer and storm water. We take 7 them to the Planning Commission for review of 8 the design layout. And then we take them to 9 the Streets Department for locations of curb 10 cuts, how parking garages and parking lots are 11 designed. And once we get all those 12 prerequisite stamps we then file with licenses 13 and inspection for zoning permits. Because 14 you need your zoning permit in order to get 15 your building permit. 16 And that process is you file your 17 plans and you do have review at the agency 18 level to determine whether the uses you're 19 proposing are permitted in the zoning district 20 in which the property is located. 21 And then there's a second set or 22 level of review, as I mentioned, that is a 23 dimensional review. What is the density? Do 24 you meet the set backs? Do you meet the 25 height? Do you meet the floor area? Do you 163 2 meet the rear yard? Do you meet open space? 3 Do you meet landscaping? Do you meet the 4 minimal design for loading docks, for loading 5 spaces, for parking spaces, for drive aisles, 6 for approved landscaping and planning 7 materials? 8 And once all that is done, if you do 9 meet all that, what you get is a by-right 10 permit and it's issued over the counter 11 without any input from the civic group or 12 community or legislators because you're 13 entitled to have permitted uses if you meet 14 the code. 15 If you don't, then you could either 16 revise your plan to meet the code or you can 17 then seek relief from the Zoning Board of 18 Adjustment requesting variance relief from 19 what's required. And that of course is a 20 public process. 21 And there's really two elements to 22 that once you get to the Zoning Board. And 23 one is to show that the use you want to do 24 there is approvable because there's a hardship 25 on the property, that the property is in 164 2 disrepair, that the zoning is changed, that 3 the character of the neighborhood is changed. 4 And the second, once you overcome 5 that burden, is that there's no adverse impact 6 on the public health, safety, welfare and 7 community. And that's really what opens the 8 door to the neighbors and civic groups and 9 elected officials to go into the hearing and 10 voice their opinion. 11 Which brings me back to what I heard 12 this morning, was that that last piece of the 13 puzzle is being removed from both the House 14 legislation and the city's legislation. So 15 that someone is going to sit down and write 16 the parameters and say, These are the uses 17 that are approved in this district and these, 18 if there are any, are the parameters for which 19 you can build a building. 20 And if you meet that, and it's 21 pretty much -- I still disagree, it's a check 22 off item -- you meet it you meet it, you get 23 your permit. You present it to City Council, 24 they review it, it sounds like it's a 25 non-discretionary type of event. It's a 165 2 resolution, so to speak. You review it, it 3 meets it, you get your permit. 4 And yes, there would be public 5 hearings. But we all know public hearings 6 sometimes are just a forum to hear the views 7 and opinions of the public, but it doesn't 8 offer them a means to then challenge the 9 legislation unless certain events occur like 10 you would at the Zoning Board. I mean, the 11 Zoning Board has its good and bad points, but 12 it also affords the general public the 13 opportunity to speak their mind. And if they 14 don't like the outcome, to appeal a decision. 15 And this legislation, as I see it, 16 takes it out of that realm. If you meet the 17 criteria that's been established ahead of 18 time, everything goes through. 19 MR. SHALLCROSS: If I may ask a 20 question? 21 MR. PATTERSON: Sure. 22 MR. SHALLCROSS: For example, when 23 you say when the plans go to the Water 24 Department for approval. Now you take just 25 the example of North Delaware Avenue. There, 166 2 are -- you know, Bridge and Powerton's under 3 construction, well, one's completed, I think 4 it's -- no, it's under construction -- there 5 are several more that are already approved and 6 the promised ones are still in the approval 7 process. To what degree does the Water 8 Department take into account the aggregate of 9 these proposed projects that as yet aren't 10 using the system when they're evaluating the 11 next project? 12 MR. PATTERSON: That's a good 13 question because, you know, we apply for and 14 get approval for many projects. Not all of 15 them get built. Some of them get resold or 16 flipped, as we say. And now a lot of them 17 aren't getting built. 18 Now, what I don't know is that if 19 you come in and say, I have 3,000 units and 20 we're going to attribute 2,000 gallons for 21 each unit, if they then take that off and 22 factor that in to what the capacity of the 23 system is or do they wait until it actually 24 constructed and say, okay, now we know that 25 there's more discharge into the system. I 167 2 don't know that. 3 I think what they're saying is that 4 they look at what the system is and they say, 5 Here is your amount of discharge and if 6 there's still capacity, they approve it. I 7 don't know if they add in all the proposed 8 projects. 9 At a certain point the systems are 10 at capacity. And the state, I believe in the 11 middle of the summer, imposed a moratorium in 12 certain areas of the city saying that the 13 Water Department can no longer give approvals 14 to hook-up to the system because it's 15 incapacitated until someone gives them money 16 to install larger piping and additional 17 treatment systems they're not going to approve 18 any further discharges. And one of the areas 19 is in Manayunk and the other one is in 20 Northeast Philadelphia. 21 So in that respect, they do take a 22 closer look. But I do not think they're 23 taking a running tally of what the projects 24 are. But that's just my impression. 25 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Rene, you 168 2 got a question or a comment? 3 MS. GOODWIN: Yeah, I did. I have a 4 question on something else, but Mr. Patterson, 5 on the moratorium on those two areas are you 6 talking about moratorium as it relates to the 7 sewage aspect or is it also a concern about 8 the supply or is it just the sewage? 9 MR. PATTERSON: Just discharge 10 sewage. 11 MS. GOODWIN: Just discharge, okay. 12 My issue is that it has come to my 13 attention that on June 2nd the community 14 groups had a deadline by which they had to 15 submit additional written testimony to the 16 Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. However, 17 that deadline did not hold for the casino 18 applicants, it was, in fact, Friday, 19 October 13th. That seems unfair. 20 Also it has also come to my 21 attention, and I have sort of known part of 22 this, that two of the four casino applicants 23 along Columbus Boulevard have in their traffic 24 studies looked at a broader area, a broader 25 impact than right in front of their nose. Why 169 2 is that relevant? 3 Well, I'll tell you why. One of the 4 things that's come out of this whole symposium 5 for me, and as Chair of River Front 6 Communities United, was been primarily 7 focussed on Foxwoods. I now wish to broaden 8 my focus somewhat because it's now painfully 9 clear, particularly because of Bill 862, that 10 there can be no boundary lines. It doesn't 11 matter where the casino goes on Columbus 12 Boulevard, we must, the communities along the 13 water front, really band together because we 14 are all going to be affected by this. 15 I still don't want Foxwoods. But as 16 somebody put it eloquently just a little while 17 ago during the lunch break, it doesn't matter 18 even if we win this one and get Foxwoods not 19 approved, we haven't really won at all because 20 there's going to be one and we are all going 21 to be affected. So we really need to 22 recognize that and act on that in a very 23 aggressive sort of way. That's all. 24 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: I think, 25 Rene, on the public input I think a lot 170 2 they've depended upon 862 being passed, 3 they're dependent upon 862 being passed in its 4 current form. I'm certainly confident that 5 that is not going to happen. But if to the 6 extent that we can delay it for some time and 7 must rework their entire schedule. 8 And I think you were here when we 9 described, Bill and Mary and I, that, you 10 know, a letter has already been drafted to the 11 Secretary of Transportation as well as the 12 Chairman of the Gaming Board based on 13 PennDOT's testimony here yesterday. I don't 14 know how they can possibly issue a license 15 when there's no plan even considered. 16 PennDOT testified here yesterday 17 that they're not changing anything. And all 18 the rhetoric about temporary ramps that the 19 casinos are putting out just flat out is not 20 true. So that's alarming enough. To ask that 21 the entire process be slowed down, not to 22 mention the number of additional amendments 23 that we'd like to do to the bill. 24 As you know, there is stuff in 862 25 that anybody concerned about good government 171 2 would be for. Our job in the next five 3 legislative days is to convince them, if you 4 are concerned about any version of good 5 government, there's plenty in 862 that should 6 make you very, very concerned. And I think 7 we've started that process. So let's hope 8 that that time line that you spoke about will 9 be very flexible. 10 MS. GOODWIN: Thank you. 11 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Other 12 questions or concerns for Mr. Patterson? 13 Step right up, Mark. 14 Do me a favor, Mark, just come on up 15 and use the mike so everybody will hear you. 16 MR. STIER: Mark Stier of 17 Neighborhood Networks. 18 One thing that we haven't really 19 talked about is what's the purposes of 862? 20 Now, part of me is political scientist and I'd 21 like to stay with fact that, you know, part of 22 me is community activist. And community 23 activists tend to exaggerate a little bit. 24 But I want to look ahead just a moment. What 25 would be the purpose of putting in place 172 2 something which really undermines the whole 3 planning process that we're talking about? 4 Interesting enough, this morning we 5 had really two very different conversations, 6 one about a plan process being developed in 7 the city that many of us think is long 8 overdue, and that might actually be a good 9 process and lead to a good result. On the 10 other hand, we're talking about a bill that 11 makes this process impossible, that basically 12 gives the Gaming Commission the authority to 13 really determine everything that happens up 14 and down the river. 15 Now, I'm sitting here thinking, why 16 would anyone want that? And when you look at 17 things like the enormous size of the buildings 18 they're talking about, when you look at the 19 billboards they're talking about with the 20 flashing lights and the animation and the neon 21 and all that stuff, that the city of 22 Philadelphia prohibited, but the Gaming 23 Commission would allow. 24 When you look at the fact that this 25 is really a cancerous kind of a situation 173 2 where you have a casino that has authority 3 over, I mean, a Gaming Commission that has 4 authority over one area that can be extended 5 up and down the river, it seems to me that 6 what people are thinking about in the future 7 is recreating a Las Vegas strip along our 8 water front. With the big hotels, that's why 9 they need the highrises. With all the 10 billboards, that's why they need to do away 11 with the billboard laws, without access to the 12 water front, which is why they need to narrow 13 the bike path and pedestrian path from 50 feet 14 to 20 feet. 15 I think what may happen in the House 16 of Representatives in the next week is going 17 to determine the future of this water front. 18 And this is the choice we're going to have 19 right now between Las Vegas strip or something 20 that, even if we don't like the casinos, at 21 least puts the casinos in a context that makes 22 the water front an attractive place for all 23 Philadelphians. 24 So I hope we can find some way to 25 make clear to the rest of this city and to the 174 2 legislators that this is really a -- this is a 3 critical week for the history of this city. 4 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Mark, keep 5 in mind, just from the legislative side, and 6 I'll let Ron respond, that our challenge is 7 that we've focussed on what we feel are very 8 damaging provisions of 862. The challenge is 9 is that there's a lot of other provisions that 10 aren't so damaging. Matter of fact, would be 11 helpful, that a lot of people want to see 12 cleaned up. It's not unusual to have a bill 13 with good and evil in the same bill. Therein 14 lies the dilemma for the Governor as well. 15 So there's a lot of politics being 16 played here too for people who really are 17 never going to see a casino face to face in 18 their life. I would venture to guess that 19 90 percent of the legislature will never 20 actually see a casino in Pennsylvania, will 21 never run into one, will never go to one. 22 They don't care, but they want the tax relief. 23 So the problem is, if that bill does 24 -- even if the bill was pushed forward then 25 you have a Governor in the dilemma of not -- 175 2 of either being for good government or bad 3 government and he's going to get criticized 4 either way no matter how he votes. As will 5 we. But I think that, you know, our goal will 6 be to open it up, do surgery and extract those 7 damaging parts, put it back together and keep 8 the good parts in it, and hope we can move 9 forward in that regard. 10 But you're absolutely right. What 11 the City Solicitor and the Planning 12 Commissioner described this morning was a 13 planning process that would be absolutely moot 14 the minute that 862 hits the desk of the 15 Governor if it's in this form and if he signs 16 it. You can plan all you want, it's not going 17 to matter. 18 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: And Mark, as 19 you know as a political scientist, this 20 started out as a good government bill. It was 21 amended. I mean, this bill didn't start out 22 in the form it's in now. It was amended with 23 all this stuff. So like I said, we've got our 24 work cut out for us. And we really have a lot 25 of hard work to do within the next five days. 176 2 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Ron, you 3 want to respond to anything Mark said? 4 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. I mean, to do 5 planning and zoning this way by doing that 6 bill or that ordinance, that really cuts 7 against the logical way that cities are laid 8 out and how planning is supposed to evolve. 9 And that's why you have industrial districts 10 which primarily are near the water, and then 11 you build out from there with buffers. You 12 have industrial, then you have light 13 industrial, then you have commercial, then you 14 have light commercial, then you have 15 residential, but maybe multi-family 16 apartments, then you go into row houses, then 17 you go into single family attached or detached 18 homes and then green space and parks and 19 schools. 20 So that there's a reason for that. 21 There's an orderly fashion. And one is 22 supposed to buffer the other. That's why you 23 don't see or you're not supposed to see or a 24 code doesn't allow that you have residential 25 in a manufacturing district or an industrial 177 2 district. And there's considerations for 3 that. Because once you get into the 4 industrial areas you're supposed to have wider 5 streets and residential you have smaller 6 streets. And you're supposed to -- if you do 7 run up against a competing use district you're 8 supposed to have buffers with landscaping and 9 the like. 10 So what this does, it just takes, it 11 carves out a piece and says, we're going to 12 forget all about the planning and orderly 13 fashion and we're going to put it here. And 14 doing it that way it really puts the burden on 15 you guys as the legislators to, hopefully, 16 you're going to place your own thoughts about 17 protecting the impact to the neighborhood 18 because of that. And you may not be able to 19 do that. 20 MR. DOUGHERTY: Just so you know, 21 besides being a lawyer, he's also an 22 environmental engineer. 23 Sandy. 24 MS. SHEA: Hi, Sandy Shea from the 25 Daily News. 178 2 Representative Taylor, you were 3 talking before about the surgery that's 4 required for these new evil amendments in 862. 5 However, the zoning preemption was in part of 6 the original bill which you all three 7 supported originally and it's not an issue in 8 this particular one. So can you talk a little 9 more about -- because I'm still a little 10 confused about you're either or all of your 11 support of the zoning preemption piece of this 12 bill. 13 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Probably, 14 and every time we spoke about this, whether 15 it's a press conference, community group or 16 even with you, Sandy, at the Editorial Board, 17 we described the fact that, yes, we had a 18 decision to make when it was put forth whether 19 or not we wanted to allow the age-old version 20 of one councilman has total veto power over 21 anything that goes on in his or her district 22 versus the state being able to bypass that. 23 That's a tough call. It was part of 24 a larger bill, and, yes, at least in my case, 25 I supported that. 179 2 The difference now is that what has 3 come back in an 862 goes beyond that times 4 100. And almost to the point that I said 5 publicly in the last few weeks that if I get a 6 chance to see the attitude and the arrogance 7 and the greed that's coming from those 8 proponents of this type of legislation, it's 9 so disrespectful, and that if I get a chance 10 to knock out the entire preemption, I'll do 11 it. So that's all part of the amendments 12 we're going to try to put forth to do that. 13 And we had a good discussion this 14 morning when Kevin Greenberg from the City 15 Solicitor's Office said that this city is 16 willing and able and ready to accept this 17 challenge and move forward. We hope that they 18 do move forward in a way that is not 19 historical and does not adhere to the age-old 20 version of having one councilman be able to 21 tie up a project indefinitely, you know, 22 similar to what they did on many, many times. 23 And the legislature wasn't willing to do that. 24 But now with all this other stuff 25 going in, and it's beyond, Sandy, I think what 180 2 we heard yesterday is beyond what even Bill 3 and Marie and I felt that was in the bill. 4 Instead of us feeling better after this 5 symposium I think that in my case I feel a 6 whole lot worse when the Water Department says 7 not only are the utility hook-ups for 8 basically free, but now there is absolutely no 9 ability for the Philadelphia Water Department 10 or the DEP to oversee anything that happens in 11 terms of the sewer system here in Philadelphia 12 if 862 would go forward. 13 And he had offered a lot of other 14 provisions that you weren't here for that 15 would indicate that even the commercial 16 entertainment district language that has been 17 put in 862 now that has been used as the good 18 government version and an improved version, 19 it, in fact, is meaningless because of all the 20 other provisions that we have cited. 21 The commercial entertainment 22 district provision was allegedly put in the 23 bill to give some parameters to the Gaming 24 Control Commission. When, in fact, all those 25 other items completely exempt that very 181 2 provision that they're talking about being 3 good government. 4 So I certainly admit to the fact 5 that, yes, I voted for that. I won't vote for 6 it again. And, you know, on balance it looks 7 like that wasn't even good enough for these 8 guys. 9 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Sandy, I 10 know you keep going back to that and you point 11 it out to us all the time, but 862 that we 12 have voted for no longer exists. I don't know 13 where they go, bill heaven somewhere, I don't 14 know, bill limbo, wherever they go. 15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Bill hell. 16 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: But that no 17 longer exists. And if we keep saying, you 18 know, but you did this. Yeah, we did it, 19 okay. But we are here now saying that this 20 version of the bill is absolutely, we cannot 21 vote for it, we have to change it, this is 22 wrong for everybody. I hope that some day the 23 newspapers would get in line with us and 24 say -- besides saying that we voted for 25 something that doesn't exist anymore, maybe 182 2 somebody could say, Hey, they're on to a good 3 thing here, they caught this in time. We're 4 doing everything we can to change it. We're 5 making the right moves, we're talking to the 6 neighborhood groups. I think we're doing good 7 things here. 8 MS. SHEA: For the record, we did 9 say that. 10 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Oh, we did? 11 Well, now we can talk about this 12 bill and how bad this bill is, that would be 13 helpful. 14 MR. LEVINS: Earlier on I mentioned 15 many of the very successful Philadelphians who 16 are investors in these casinos. And one of 17 the names that I omitted is Brian Tierney who 18 has a controlling interest in the Inquirer and 19 Daily News. So I hope people like Brian 20 Tierney would realize that this Senate Bill 21 862 really takes away the power of visionaries 22 of the future, if you will. 23 I mentioned visionaries of the past 24 who were responsible for the Parkway, 25 Schuylkill Water Front and Old City. This 183 2 bill strips the ability of future visionaries 3 to come to the surface. And I would hope 4 people like Richard Sprague and Brian Tierney 5 fight along with us to make sure that this 6 bill never gets signed by the Governor. 7 MR. DOUGHERTY: Sandy, did you have 8 anything else that you wanted to talk about? 9 I only introduced you as Sandy, you said that 10 you worked for the Daily News, that adds a 11 different twist in here. Do you have any 12 other questions or concerns? 13 MS. SHEA: No, thank you. 14 MR. DOUGHERTY: I appreciate you 15 taking the time out to come down here today 16 too. Thank you. 17 Dr. Moylan. 18 DR. MOYLAN: Just as a curiosity, 19 casinos or not new, casinos are in many urban 20 areas and rural areas. But have they ever 21 tried to put them in as urban or congested 22 area as they are here? And is that why it's 23 explaining some of the extra apparent 24 confusion that we're having? Why there's so 25 many problems. 184 2 And by no means am I in favor of 3 them just being thrust upon us. But if they 4 have no history of trying to put it in such a 5 congested area, that may explain why we're 6 having all these problems and that's where the 7 lack of communication is. So I don't know if 8 that's something that's been discussed or 9 addressed. 10 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: I don't 11 think we're having problems. We know what 12 this bill says, we know what the bill takes 13 away from the community and we're saying 14 that's wrong. 15 DR. MOYLAN: And I'm in full 16 agreement with that. I'm just saying from 17 their perspective they're just used to walking 18 in and saying, We're here, Now welcome us. 19 And we're now offering such a unique 20 situation. 21 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: You know, 22 this is where maybe I have -- here I go again, 23 when did they get a vote? When did they get a 24 chance to put -- when do they get a chance to 25 do that? They do what gets passed, they don't 185 2 get in. I mean, as the city has said, we'll 3 work with them, we'll make sure it works, 4 we'll make sure we do it right. But you just 5 don't take away all their problems and forget 6 any community involvement in it. That's what 7 this is about. 8 MR. MULLIGAN: I can answer your 9 question. Pat Mulligan. 10 MR. DOUGHERTY: Pat Mulligan, how 11 about you answering that question? 12 MR. MULLIGAN: I sat on the Mayor's 13 Gaming Task Force and we found out that 14 there's never been or no casino has ever been 15 plopped into an urban environment such as 16 Philadelphia ever before. We are the test 17 case. We are truly the test case. All right. 18 And I want to make a statement and I 19 want to follow-up on something this gentleman 20 said. 21 Now, I was involved in the stadium 22 process early on in building this -- in 23 helping getting those stadiums built in South 24 Philly. Okay. And the city was actively 25 involved. And when the city decided with the 186 2 community and the community agreed to have 3 these things housed in South Philly the city 4 worked with the community on building 5 restrictions around their neighborhoods to 6 prevent this volume of traffic that comes down 7 Broad Street and go into their neighborhoods 8 when they have game day, when they have large 9 events, it protects the community. 10 I have seen every single traffic 11 study that these casinos have put out. I know 12 there's supplemental stuff being put out that 13 I haven't seen yet that's been produced in the 14 last couple weeks. 15 What really concerns me -- and I'm 16 not a native Philadelphia, all right. I 17 didn't grow up in the city, I wasn't born here 18 and all that, but I love the city. 19 What really concerns me is that not 20 one of those traffic studies -- they all 21 address about traffic on Delaware Avenue, they 22 all address how it's going to come off 95 and 23 into their front door, they don't address how 24 they're going to protect the community. Not 25 one of them has addressed in any of their 187 2 traffic studies how they're going to protect 3 the community. How they're going to keep that 4 traffic, other than signs, out of the 5 community. 6 And I think as our legislative body 7 and all, you know, 862 kills us because the 8 city does not have a say anymore. We can't 9 come to that developer and say, how are you 10 going to protect this community from your 11 development, from your overflow of traffic? 12 And I think as a community we got to find a 13 way to do that. 14 MR. DOUGHERTY: Rene. 15 MS. GOODWIN: Yes. John, we 16 focussed a great deal on the negative aspects 17 of 862, as that should be. But as the day 18 wears on and we are almost overwhelmed with 19 information, I wonder if the legislators can 20 just briefly restate the positive aspects of 21 862 and its original intention lest we do not 22 forget them as the amendments move forward. 23 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Rene, in 24 862, and I don't have it in front of me so, I 25 mean, the bill is this thick, but I know that 188 2 a lot of the backroom controversy with regard 3 to suppliers and manufacturers and legislative 4 dictates about who is going to be suppliers. 5 And in fact, many of the political connected 6 people like are involved in the casino 7 investment or involved in these suppliers, 8 there was a mandate that the casinos had to 9 use suppliers before they could purchase slot 10 machines. There was dictates on who was going 11 to be the manufacturer who was allowed to sell 12 certain percentages and things. Definitions 13 about who was a public official. Percentages 14 of ownership. And there's a couple other ones 15 that I'm not remembering. But all those 16 things that smack of backroom self-preserving, 17 self-protection of the investors who are 18 involved in the political process is due to be 19 removed. 20 So it is curious, while we'll do 21 that -- but none of that really, if you think 22 about it, a lot of that benefits the casinos 23 as well as the other negative provisions too. 24 So in addition to being, those 25 provisions being good government, for example, 189 2 there's no longer a mandate for the use of 3 suppliers. They're going to phase that out. 4 Not only are they going to phase that out, but 5 they're going to create a slush fund, pardon 6 the use of that term, but they're going to 7 create monies to pay the suppliers when they 8 sue because they are already in. 9 So if you look at the overall theme, 10 not only did they straighten out ostensibly 11 some shaky dealing, but along with what we 12 think are the negative provisions, now you got 13 complete sweeping off the table of any 14 restrictions whatsoever. 15 Some of those restrictions were not 16 good about what they -- how they could buy, 17 who they had to buy through. But you add to 18 it the riparian rights, the billboards, the 19 associated areas, the no smoking, the no 20 utility oversight. And they make no bones 21 about it, we do not want any obstacles 22 whatsoever. Not only do we want no land use 23 oversight that would cause lawsuits, we don't 24 want anything. 25 So some of those things actually 190 2 work for many legislators that they're going 3 to feel good about because the rest of these 4 provisions that we find negative not only just 5 deal with Philadelphia but in truth only deal 6 with this section of Philadelphia. 7 So our first challenge is to really 8 invigorate our fellow legislators in the city, 9 and then to extend it to beyond to say, you 10 shouldn't feel good about this at the end of 11 the day that you're casting a positive vote 12 for this. 13 So there's already a built-in number 14 of pure anti-gaming votes. Add to that the 15 Philadelphians who were pro gaming in general, 16 there may be an exception or two to that, but 17 I don't think there was, and then maybe you 18 form a coalition enough to beat all this back. 19 MS. GOODWIN: But wasn't it a 20 Philadelphia legislator that helped craft this 21 bill? 22 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Certainly 23 there's a Philadelphia legislator that's 24 defending this bill. 25 MS. GOODWIN: Thank you. 191 2 MR. DOUGHERTY: Gentleman. 3 And then we'll come back to you, 4 Sandy. 5 MS. SHEA: I just wanted to add a 6 point of information. 7 MR. DOUGHERTY: Well, why don't we 8 take -- before the question we'll take a point 9 of information. 10 MR. PAPPAJOHN: It seems that so 11 much of Act 71 and S.B. 862 have been written 12 and enacted to really further gaming in 13 Philadelphia, obviously. But more protecting 14 the interests of gambling operators rather 15 than residents of the adjacent neighborhoods 16 where these things will go. 17 And I think while you've properly 18 identified some of the merits of 862, there's 19 some other things that could go in there which 20 would make it even better for people along the 21 river, specifically legislating CBAs and 22 special service districts for the 23 neighborhoods that will be affected. 24 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Identify 25 CBA, Matt. 192 2 MR. PAPPAJOHN: I'm Matthew 3 Pappajohn. 4 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: No, identify 5 what CBA means. 6 MR. PAPPAJOHN: Oh, Community 7 Benefits Agreement. Just identify -- 8 legislate and identify a source of funding or 9 a fund that will be set up to enrich 10 neighborhoods and at the same time mitigate 11 the harms that will be inflicted by these 12 things. And there will no doubt be harms, as 13 we all know. 14 And the special services district, 15 it is something that could be modeled after 16 what goes on down at the stadium. 17 And I think the big part of it is 18 the state's taking responsibility for some of 19 this financially. You're a 54 percent partner 20 in the enterprise. That's a lot to ask a 21 casino to do after they're already ponying up 22 54 percent. So somehow between the state's 23 share, the city's share and the operators' 24 share of the proceeds there's got to be 25 something done for the neighborhoods. And it 193 2 should be legislated and not left to chance, I 3 think. 4 I think another really important 5 thing would be to legislate that there can't 6 be two casinos within two miles of each other 7 anywhere along the river front or anywhere in 8 Philadelphia, for that matter, anywhere in 9 Pennsylvania. Act 71 says you can't have two 10 casinos within ten miles of each other to 11 protect operators' interests. Why not do the 12 same for neighbors? 13 And I think that's it. I think 14 those are -- 15 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: And just for 16 the record, that ten-mile provision was in 17 there to protect the racing industry so that 18 somebody wouldn't plop a casino right next to 19 a race track. 20 MR. PAPPAJOHN: There are slot 21 parlors in race tracks. So really it's -- 22 REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: It was to 23 protect that entity. And you know, for the 24 record, the discussion about slot machines all 25 began with saving the racing industry, which 194 2 is a very big -- that plays well in 3 Pennsylvania because it brings in the 4 agricultural community, and therefore, a lot 5 of legislators. 6 MR. PAPPAJOHN: I think slot parlors 7 at race tracks are not necessarily a bad idea. 8 I doubt that most of them are plopping them 9 down next to the neighborhood. 10 MR. DOUGHERTY: Can you put your 11 name into the record for me, please? 12 MR. PAPPAJOHN: My name is Matt 13 Pappajohn. I live in Fishtown. 14 MR. PATTERSON: Matt raises a good 15 point. Because oftentimes when if I go to the 16 Zoning Board with a matter and I'm opposed, 17 it's not because people are against the use, 18 they want to try to minimize the impact. And 19 which leads you to a developer's agreement or 20 proviso conditions that are attached to the 21 permit. It could vary from the hours of 22 operation to the changing of traffic 23 circulation and the like. 24 And you know, they often work very 25 well and sometimes result in deed 195 2 restrictions. What it does is also takes the 3 enforcement away from the city or adds to the 4 city's enforcement by empowering the people 5 who signed on to the agreement, which could be 6 a civic group, to have the ability to enforce 7 privately if the city no longer has the 8 resources or L & I inspectors, as the case 9 would be, to go out. 10 So the developer's agreement 11 would -- that kind of thing would be nice if 12 there was an opportunity to do that. Then 13 it's surrounding impact to communities could 14 have their concerns addressed. If they get 15 over the threshold of saying that we're okay 16 with the use. 17 MR. DOUGHERTY: Sandy, you had a 18 point of information? 19 MS. SHEA: Oh, I just wanted to 20 point out, the Representatives were very good 21 in acknowledging and bringing to light all the 22 bad stuff of 862. The one good thing was it 23 eliminated the one percent ownership that 24 legislators and elected officials could have, 25 and now they can't have any ownership at all. 196 2 So that's one of the other positives. 3 MR. DOUGHERTY: And also, initially, 4 most of one discussion, Act 71, I mean, you 5 very infrequently had any conversation about 6 Act 71 without a great emphasis on the wage 7 tax reduction and property tax relief. And 8 they're just things that people have a lot -- 9 I mean, it just seemed that any conversation 10 initially somewhere along the line there was a 11 serious discussion about that. And rightfully 12 so. People, you know, have interests in that. 13 But it just seems that right now our 14 symposium is not only about the next six 15 months, our symposium is about the next 16 decade, okay. Our symposium here understands 17 that there has to keep an industrial base, 18 okay. We understand that we have, what I 19 refer to as a working to stay middle class 20 group of neighbors along a big portion of that 21 water front, okay. 22 But we also have a very different 23 approach to some of the other neighborhoods. 24 The condo explosion, okay, the loft explosion, 25 the need for green space. The fact that, you 197 2 know, I have been lucky enough to visit a few 3 other water front locales, you know, the open 4 amphitheater, the better use of Penn's 5 Landing, the better use of marinas, the 6 dredging of the river. I mean, these are 7 topics that are serious points of discussion 8 that will develop over a period of time. 9 With all due respect, we sung a lot 10 of praises about the executive order of the 11 Mayor. But the last election process didn't 12 go too well that he had. And so what happens 13 is we don't want things to either get tied up 14 in court or become some thought process that 15 takes forever. 16 We had questions and concerns about 17 things that are being done like the traffic 18 from the Food and Produce Center. We had the 19 sewerage overflow. The, you know, the lack of 20 green space. We hear all the time, well, it's 21 difficult, you can't get to Penn's Landing, 22 I-95 separates it. 23 In fact, in one of the arguments one 24 of the makers of the bill had with some of our 25 elected officials, what do you care, it's so 198 2 far from the neighborhoods? It's really not. 3 Okay. Anybody ever walk across the South 4 Street Bridge? Talk to the close to 2 million 5 people that visit the ice skating rinks. I'm 6 down there three or four times a year. We 7 have an ice skating program for the Variety 8 Club. And that's prior to Ikea and movie 9 theaters and Long Horns and things along them 10 lines. 11 So these are issues that are big 12 picture issues. We just don't want it stuck 13 in that normal long term Philadelphia process. 14 You heard some of our speakers here talk about 15 Ed Bacon on one hand and then talk about our 16 inability to get anything done on either side 17 of the water, the Schuylkill or the Delaware. 18 We believe that for a lot of years 19 there wasn't as many people in them 20 neighborhoods, and now there are and there's a 21 lot of interests. So we just tried to channel 22 that, focus in in the right direction. 23 It just happens that we have 24 something called Bill 862 that has brought all 25 neighborhoods together, normally where we 199 2 might have a little difference, we put that 3 aside for the big picture. 4 Not everybody in the room doesn't 5 have the same view of gaming. We have the 6 same view of lack of input in gaming. 7 MR. PATTERSON: I think it brings an 8 awareness to how all the pieces of the puzzle 9 fit. And I think that's really what the 10 catalyst probably has been in terms of uses 11 and in traffic and in design. And I think, 12 like you said, I think the traffic impact is 13 probably a larger issue. And you're limited 14 by geography and the physicalities of the 15 street in order to address the traffic. 16 You know, the example that I gave 17 about the Post Office facility, we were able 18 to at least get them to agree that all 19 industrial traffic to and from the facility 20 would go on a new street that they were going 21 to dedicate off of Island Avenue. But it's 22 awfully difficult to put a dedicated street 23 here on Delaware Avenue to say all the traffic 24 coming or going to the casino can take it's 25 own dedicated ramp exit off of I-95. 200 2 MR. DOUGHERTY: Let's stay right 3 there. We had the Delaware Valley Planning. 4 If you want to get some federal funding you 5 have to let them know what you're doing, okay, 6 the process. 7 We had PennDOT. We got a Governor 8 that transcends bi-partisan, gets along with 9 everybody, gets along with people in 10 Washington. So it's not -- in some cases we 11 have some people in office that are paralyzed 12 by their specific party affiliation. Okay. 13 We got a Speaker and a Governor both from the 14 region, two different parties but from the 15 area, they communicate. 16 We got agencies that aren't talking. 17 We got a game plan, we got transportation, you 18 know, TIP program that doesn't have any of 19 these locations on any of their -- in their 20 game plan. They're telling us they got $900 21 million dollars worth of money and that will 22 get them to Vine Street at best. And they're 23 saying that they're not sure that I-95 can 24 handle the additional traffic it's taking 25 right now from a structural standpoint. 201 2 So if the pipes can't handle the 3 water and the roads can't handle the traffic, 4 thank God the skies can handle the clouds. 5 You know what I mean? 6 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Maybe we 7 better check 862. 8 MR. DOUGHERTY: That's why we're 9 here. This isn't -- I don't want anybody to 10 think -- this is only the beginning. This is 11 the first of what we expect to be many. 12 Now, if it's all right we'll start 13 to wind up a little bit. And I'm going to go 14 around, we'll get questions, final statements. 15 Okay. Ladies before gentlemen. 16 HER HER: You're making a good point 17 with, you know, lack of communication and the 18 lack of organization. I was just wondering 19 what your next step is and what the panel's 20 next step is in dealing with some of these 21 issues that we're bringing up and addressing 22 over the last few days. 23 MR. DOUGHERTY: I can tell you what 24 my immediate role will be, communicate with my 25 brothers and sisters from the Whitman 202 2 Association, some of the other civic 3 associations, to see how we can gather the 4 information and get it out. We will try to 5 gather this, answer some of the pending 6 questions, get some of the copies of the 7 traffic reviews. A lot of people haven't had 8 access to them. And we want to make sure that 9 everything that went on here we have some 10 accessibility. 11 I believe that the dialogue that has 12 not only been opened up between us and the 13 legislature, but between some of you and 14 legislature. We'll never be able to -- you 15 can't -- there's no price put on that. We had 16 people in the room in the last two days 17 talking to each other that I never thought 18 would happen, productive conversations, I just 19 never thought your paths would cross. They're 20 now working together. 21 And I believe that you already heard 22 State Representative Taylor say he's going to 23 shoot off something to the Gaming Commission 24 first thing tomorrow stating that, Yo, you 25 have people in this area, the water front 203 2 development process, who have not 3 communicated. How can you give them a gaming 4 application at this time without this 5 communication being kept? 6 So I think that you have a series of 7 things. You have us from a civic association, 8 civic body, continuing to gather information, 9 help facilitate the answers to questions, 10 trying to transcend each other's concerns and 11 visions and try to continue to move forward 12 and also prepare for the next one of these. 13 And where do we do it, and how do we do it, 14 and on and on and on. 15 I believe that the legislature has a 16 much more obvious problem. They have their 17 Senate bill right in front of them, it could 18 be any day this week. So they're going to go 19 back later tonight, tomorrow and start to 20 handle their -- I don't know what the proper 21 wording is -- reworking of it. 22 Also, they're going to file off some 23 letters that, you know, obviously come with a 24 little bit more drag, right, wrong, or how we 25 think, you know, than we have at this present 204 2 time. Saying, Hey, this is what we picked up 3 here. The first question -- the first letter 4 or two they had they were working on this 5 morning together. That's all good. 6 We have a lot of the community 7 newspapers are here. We have a lot of the 8 community groups are here. We have some of 9 the think tanks here, some of -- you know, we 10 have the newspapers here, we have the media 11 here yesterday. 12 You know, it was funny, I had 13 somebody talk to me, he was joking with me, 14 said, Yo, I thought about running for office, 15 I'm thinking about moving now. And we were 16 joking in the back, it's sort of like one of 17 the Batman movies, the later Batman movies 18 where it's dark and the fog is coming from 19 manholes and, you know, that's the perception. 20 And if you listen to some of the people here 21 that are the people in position to talk to us. 22 And there's also, there's a little 23 bit of a -- there's still people lobbying 24 hard, as much as we're here saying, Hey, we 25 don't want this, there's still people in the 205 2 background saying, They don't need anything, 3 push it. 4 I can tell you there was one or two 5 speakers I had conversations with in 6 preparation for this who kind of went soft on 7 me between now and then. I didn't want to put 8 them in an awkward spot. One day he's telling 9 me how bad the sewer system is, and the other 10 day he's trying to convince me that there's a 11 possibility that a lot of it is because of the 12 additional flood. I said, try to tell that to 13 Mike O'Donnell. 14 And I've had conversations with the 15 Mayor, the Managing Director and the Water 16 Commissioner about this. I've sent letters 17 off two and a half years ago about these 18 issues. I'm just glad that -- but I did that 19 in three or four different hats. This one's 20 purely about generating some sort of game 21 plan. 22 And in the last six weeks since 23 we've been marketing this, dropped off 600,000 24 fliers, an executive order was signed. I'd 25 like to think that we had just a little bit to 206 2 do with that executive order being signed. 3 And then the Governor sent a letter 4 out, by the way, pretty detailed, which will 5 also be in the packets we put out opposing 6 this. 7 Our friends from the longshoremen 8 union are understanding how they might be 9 saving one industry by plopping a road, but it 10 might be separating them from future growth. 11 We have International Officers who have roots 12 in the neighborhood here representing them. 13 And staying the whole day. 14 That's not me closing, that's 15 somebody's phone. 16 Any other quick questions? Mark? 17 Rene? Eddie? How about we start to try to 18 bring this to a -- my mom's birthday, she 19 ain't feeling good, I got to get down the 20 shore. 21 MR. STIER: I just want to say that 22 as we move forward I hope we think a little 23 bit about an agency that's not here and the 24 solution that we haven't talked too much 25 about, and that's using public transit. 207 2 You know, we have a -- I made a 3 proposal about three weeks ago about using 4 public transit to move parking off site. And 5 I'm working with a transit guide to try to 6 make it a little bit more detailed to get more 7 information to release it publicly. 8 But my understanding is the Port 9 Authority has been studying transit on the 10 water front for a while. And that there's 11 some study there, I can't get my hands on it, 12 I can't get anyone to tell me whether it's 13 real or not, but I would like someone with a 14 little more authority like some of the folks 15 up there to investigate it. 16 Because, you know, when you build a 17 transit solution the most expensive thing is 18 track. We have the track up and down Columbus 19 Boulevard. We have an abandoned train track 20 from Tasker that goes down almost to the 21 sports arenas. And we can put parking off 22 site and move people up and down on trolleys. 23 And I think that would dramatically improve 24 the impact of those casinos on the local 25 neighborhood. So I hope you can consider that 208 2 as a possibility as well. 3 MR. DOUGHERTY: We appreciate that. 4 Just tongue and cheek, we're outside 5 yesterday, we had Joe Brooks here from Penn's 6 Landing, and we were saying that the traffic 7 we were going to try to have the River Ferry 8 run back and forth to SuperFresh on Sunday 9 afternoons. Okay. I mean -- but there's -- 10 you know, we joke and laugh, but you're right, 11 we have the tracks, you've made that point. 12 MR. STIER: That's 80 percent of the 13 cost. And we get federal money because the 14 existing track would count as the local 15 contribution. So we go right to the top of 16 the federal list of getting money for things 17 like this. 18 MR. DOUGHERTY: Eddie Kirlin. 19 MR. KIRLIN: Yeah. Ed Kirlin, 20 Pennsport. 21 I hope from here on out we can stop 22 calling these community benefit agreements, 23 call them casino community destruction 24 mitigation agreement, because that's what they 25 are. And at the end of the day, what do we 209 2 know? 3 We know that we got a sewer system 4 that's clogged now and we're going to add 5 sewage of 12 million to 18 million more 6 people. 7 We know we got Delaware Avenue 8 that's clogged now, it's gridlocked, and we're 9 going to add the traffic from 12,000 to 18,000 10 million more people a year. 11 We do know that we have three State 12 Representatives that give a damn. They're 13 smart and they're doing their job. 14 And we also know that they're 15 proposing to build casinos on land that they 16 don't own or else the riparian rights stuff 17 wouldn't be in the legislation 862. 18 And the last time up it was an 19 $800 million project. So we're giving away 20 $300 million dollars. I would encourage you 21 fellows to tell your state legislators to 22 don't give up there, it's a huge give away, 23 it's just as good as a payoff. Thank you. 24 MR. DOUGHERTY: Rene. 25 MS. GOODWIN: Mr. Patterson, you 210 2 were talking a little earlier about the 3 certain ratio or the guide of water disposal 4 per person, I'm not as intimately acquainted 5 with the other casino applicants as I am with 6 Foxwoods' application, in their Phase 3 of 7 their program they are proposing two 500-foot 8 high structures, one would be a condominium or 9 some sort of residential towers, rental or 10 condominium, the other one is a hotel. I 11 don't know what the other dimensions are, so I 12 don't know how many living units, but I just 13 wanted you to know that. 14 And the other thing, one day I was 15 kind of fooling around and I was looking at 16 the map of Philadelphia in relation to this 17 whole casino issue. And it occurred to me 18 that if you start with Chester Downs in 19 Chester and you go to at least one casino on 20 the water front, the other casino either being 21 on the water front or East Falls, and then the 22 fourth location, Philadelphia Park, you have a 23 stunning four large gambling opportunities 24 within about a 50 to 55-mile area. Is that 25 the way to move this city forward? 211 2 MR. DOUGHERTY: One interesting 3 piece of conversation we picked up yesterday, 4 Philadelphia Park, a lot of their water comes 5 into the Philadelphia system, until this point 6 has not had any conversation with the 7 Philadelphia Water Department. 8 Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank 9 you. I want to thank not only our 10 legislators, our community leaders, but all 11 the professionals that came down and you, 12 yourself. We'll see you in a couple months. 13 Thank you. 14 (End of Sunday, October 15, 2006 15 session.)