All Sustainability, All the Time... The 10-Year Tax Abatement Has Got To Go!

In his June 17th speech to the Planning Commission, Mayor Nutter stated "We prefer to revitalize existing structures where possible and carefully integrate new development into our existing environment."

Last night, during his speech to the Urban Sustainability Forum at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Mark Alan Hughes addressed the topic of "sustainability." As is practice among planning types, he prefaced his talk by reciting the various truisms of the green movement including the oft-repeated phrase, "the greenest building is the one that is already built."

It's one of those bumper-sticker slogans that the City's green guru repeats in just about all of his media appearances. Despite Dr. Hughes' affinity for the phrase and his boss's apparent commitment to the revitalization of existing structures, it's a bit curious Dr. Hughes never ever addresses Philadelphia's Tear-Down-Old-Buildings Tax Credit.

Err, I mean the "10-Year Tax Abatement."

Despite this apparent preference of the new mayoral administration, why isn't anyone questioning whether it makes any sense, especially in the whole sustainability context, to subsidize the tearing down existing structures?

Aside from the very questionable equities of a very poor City subsidizing the construction of million dollar condos, why do we subsidize the dirty and decidedly not green business of tearing down old homes?

In my humble opinion, any serious appraisal of Philadelphia's sustainability priorities must include a reappraisal of the 10-year Tax Abatement. It's just not sustainable. It's the antithesis of "green." It's anathema to the commitment to meet our present needs without constraining the ability of future generations to meet their needs, which by the way is Dr. Hughes' definition of sustainability.

As then Candidate Nutter wrote in his Plan for Better Housing Now, "One of Philadelphia’s advantages among large U.S. cities is our large stock of historic, high-density, and well-located housing." As some other candidate for some fictional office wrote, "instead of locally-crafted wrought iron and copper sheathing, we install built-in-somewhere-else, pre-fab garage doors."

To which, nearly two years later, I'd like to add that by shipping in all that pre-fab crap we also increase our collective carbon footprint by several orders of magnitude. Not to mention, all of that old growth pine that that turn-of-the-century Philadelphians used as studs gets gutted and tossed in the local landfill - or worse - shipped to some Lou DeNaples landfill somewhere up in Scranton courtesy of some no-bid NTI contract.

Now I'm not saying that Philadelphia should not provide tax incentives for construction projects. I'm just saying that we should only provide tax incentives for sustainable construction projects.

Fortunately the U.S. Green Building Council has already provided us a handy, dandy metric for measuring the right kind of sustainable construction projects - LEED.

I'd rather not get into all the details because, after all, this is just a blog. And to be perfectly honest, I doubt I have anything resembling a complete understanding of how LEED works. But boiled down to basics, I propose rejiggering the whole abatement thing. Quit handing out tax breaks to any old developer who tears down classic structures only to replace them with generic boxes. Instead, tie the abatement to LEED rating. An abatement premised on LEED certification could continue to incentivize new construction while also preserving the existing housing stock that creates the sense of place that defines Philadelphia. The basic structure would look something like this:

Platinum buildings would receive a 100% abatement.
Gold buildings would receive a 75% abatement.
Silver would get a 50% abatement.
Certified would get a 25% abatement.
All the other guys, no soup for you.

In addition to favoring the retention of our "greenest buildings," an abatement premised on LEED rating could also impact local employment. As I understand it (I may be wrong), a building's final LEED score roughly approximates the overall carbon footprint of associated with the construction and subsequent operation of the building. Because locally-crafted products don't incur the same carbon costs some pre-fab product built-on the other side of the planet, a LEED-based abatement would give builders a reason to choose local products made by Philadelphians. In other words, having a tax abatement based upon LEED score would be a damn fine way to get around that whole constitutional issue associated with local preferences. If Philadelphia is ever going to be really sustainable in not just the "green" kinda way, we really need to get back into that whole locally-made-products business.

Look, I'm not wedded to LEED. I just use it here as as an example of how eligibility for a new 10-Year Tax Abatement could be premised. We could surely tie a new abatement to other factors like affordability. Whatever Philadelphia ends up doing, Philadelphia will never be a truly sustainable city until the present 10-Year Tax Abatement is abolished.

The hardest thing to do is to doubt your own success. And arguably, the 10-year Tax Abatement is the most successful City policy of the last 25 years. And despite all that, it needs to go.

If Mayor Nutter really wants to accomplish his goal of making Philadelphia the greenest city in America, the 10-Year Tax Abatement has got to go.

The South Street Bridge - A Failure of Design

[Tonight, at 6:30, there will be a community meeting at the Philadelphia School at 25th and Lombard regarding the redesign of the the South Street Bridge. The following is a post that was originally published on this blog on 5-24-2007. Hopefully, it gives a reason to come out and let your opinion be known.]

"Controversy over design standards often arises when state DOTs take the Green Book standards for arterials and large roadways and apply them in a rigid and unyielding fashion without regard for community or environmental impacts."

Those are not my words. They are the words of Edward McMahon and Shelly S. Mastran. They appear on page 125 of a report titled "Better Models for Development in Pennsylvania, Ideas for Creating More Liveable and Prosperous Communities." The report was commissioned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Governor Ed Rendell wrote the foreword.

In the foreword, Governor Rendell writes:

"We need to empower county governments and regional planning entities to conserve natural and heritage resources and promote recreational activities through cooperative planning. We must advance projects and planning that demonstrate sustainable growth and green infrastructure and conservation. This guide outlines many ways to accomplish these goals. It is a helpful tool for local government officials as they plan their communities’ future. By creating attractive and sustainable communities, we are ensuring a more prosperous Pennsylvania and a brighter future for us all."

Whoever designed the proposed South Street Bridge never read this report, let alone considered the Governor's words. As they were advised precisely not to do, the designers of the proposed South Street Bridge took the Green Book standards for arterials and large roadways and applied them in a rigid and unyielding fashion without regard for community or environmental impacts.

The proposed bridge design is configured to serve the needs of the interstate - NOT the needs of the neighborhoods it connects. They have taken a bridge built to connect two neighborhoods and rendered it a preferred route for commercial traffic. PennDOT focused on facilitating vehicle traffic to the exclusion of consideration of features that support and shape communities and pedestrian safety.

Instead of building a bridge that considers the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, the designers configured the proposed bridge to facilitate commercial truck traffic. Designers widened the bridge to accommodate five lanes of traffic and enlarged the intersection of the on ramps to facilitate access to I-76.

Currently, the tractor trailers cannot use the South Street Bridge to access I-76. The turning lanes at the top of the on ramps are too narrow to accommodate the turning radius of large trucks. By enlarging the intersection, the new bridge will allow tractor trailers to use the South Street Bridge to enter and exit I-76.

The South Street Bridge never served as an access point for tractor trailers and commercial traffic. This new bridge will change this reality. Suburbanites attempting to beat rush hour traffic will come to see the bridge as a preferred method to exit Center City. Truckers will be encouraged to lumber down the "death ramps."

Admittedly, the current bridge must be replaced. And Philadelphia must rely on federal interstate funds to pay for its replacement. And federal funds stipulate certain design standards. And it is certainly better to have a bad bridge than no bridge. However, this is a bridge that will stand for at least 75 years.

75 years is a long time to be stuck with a bad bridge. Particularly if the proposed bridge turns out to be not just bad, but a terrible bridge.

If the proposed bridge does what it is designed to do, tractor trailers will rumble down Lombard and back up South. Our neighborhoods are already choked with traffic. Our children already dodge too many reckless drivers. If PennDOT's designers have achieved their goals, semis will roll past Pumpkin choking diners with diesel dust and smothering the rebirth of the South Street West commercial corridor.

If this eventuality is realized, property values will be lowered. A neighborhood that is crucial to Philadelphia's continued civic revitalization will be sacrificed.

Highway interests have attempted this before. Bacon tried to turn South Street into an expressway and fortunately he was stopped.

We should be reconfiguring our cities away from dependence on cars and trucks. Our next Mayor has enthusiastically endorsed the Next Great City project. Yet, we are investing in infrastructure that directly undermines the principles of environmental sustainability embodied by this proposal.

Philadelphia has been through bad bridge design before. PennDOT tried to replace the Germantown Avenue Bridge with a more "efficient" structure. Predictably, the idea of increasing traffic flow and speed raised the concerns of those who lived in its immediate vicinity. As observed by Allison de Cerreno and Isabelle Pierson in a report published by the NYU Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service titled Context Sensitive Solutions in Large Central Cities, "upon hearing the plans, residents quickly voiced concerns over three key areas: speed, aesthetics, and historical/archaeological preservation."

Like what is now being down to the neighborhoods on either side of the South Street Bridge, engineers sought to make the Germantown Avenue Bridge more "efficient" by "smoothing a severe curve." The same Green Book standards, which were apparently followed in the design of the proposed South Street Bridge, dictated the Germantown Avenue Bridge be built to accommodate speeds up to 45 MPH. Chestnut Hill reacted and fought the design of the bridge. And as a result, their community now has a bridge that protects a community and its residents.

After cursory review of the proposed South Street Bridge, it is clear that PennDOT and Philadelphia's Streets Department never learned those lessons. They have once again made the same mistakes. They have failed to conform to industry practice. They have ignored the principles of context sensitive design. They have failed to incorporate any traffic calming features, let alone consider the needs of the immediate neighborhood.

As observed by the NYU report, "AASHTO’s Green Book, which serves as a guide for design standards, is still often utilized by individual practitioners to support rigid standards in a culture focused primarily on vehicle mobility, throughput, and safety rather than on how to best integrate these important aspects of transportation with features that support and shape communities."

It is clear that the designers of the South Street Bridge did exactly this. They focused on the mobility, throughput, and safety of vehicles, to the exclusion of consideration of features that support and shape communities.

Returning to the "Best Models" report that I quoted from to begin this post, it is clear that the designers of the South Street Bridge failed to give any consideration to the design principles endorsed by the report. The "Best Models" report posits six design principles; none of which were apparently considered. I could have forgone this entire post and simply lifted the report in its entirety and let its authors argue against its own design proposal.

Consider the sixth and final principle, "Reduce the Impact of the Car and Promote Walkability." On page 116, the writers expound on this principle. The report reads:

"Reducing the impact of the automobile means providing more transportation choice. It also means designing transportation facilities that are beautiful as well as functional, that meet the needs of people as well as those of motor vehicles, and that respect and enhance local communities. Design standards for neighborhood streets, roads, bridges, parking lots and other transportation facilities should be reexamined to make them more human-scale and community friendly. Even minor design improvements can lessen the negative visual, physical and environmental impacts of new roads and bridges. Transportation choice can be expanded by providing better public transportation and building more sidewalks, trails, and bike paths that can create a network of non-motorized transportation options within and between communities and allow citizens to increase their physical activity close to home. Communities can also foster healthy lifestyles by considering walkable, mixed-use development and traffic-calming measures like roundabouts, curb extensions, or narrowing streets to slow down traffic and make walking and biking more desirable."

None of these features or design principles are present in the proposed South Street Bridge - particularly that last bit about narrowing of streets. The designers have taken a cookie cutter bridge meant to provide access to some Wal-Mart out by some interchange off Route 202 and superimposed it upon a neighborhood defined by its walkability. The needs of the communities served by the current bridge have been rendered subservient to "efficiency" and tractor trailers.

On page 124 of the "Best Models" report, the authors write: "The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has issued a context sensitive solutions policy to become more sensitive to community needs, and new federal transportation legislation now gives states the flexibility to use their own design standards in sensitive locations."

PennDOT's website recognizes its commitment to these design principles. The website states: "PENNDOT has embraced FHWA’s Context Sensitive Design initiative committed to changing the way highway projects are developed, constructed and maintained. Context sensitivity emphasizes the broad nature of solutions to transportation needs by focusing on enhancing the quality of life across the Commonwealth for transportation users, communities and the surrounding environment."

On another page of its website, PennDOT states: "The CSS initiative focuses on applying the flexibility in design standards to meet local community needs, promote joint use of transportation corridors by pedestrians, cyclists and public transit vehicles, develop a comprehensive transportation program and allow sufficient flexibility to encourage innovative or unique designs for particular situations."

Apparently, PennDOT in its design of the South Street Bridge has failed to consider its own best practices.

It is clear the designers of the proposed South Street Bridge not only failed to heed principles of good design, but also the policies of their very own state and federal agencies. Notably, PennDOT omits the proposed South Street Bridge from its list of "featured projects."

Had the City of Philadelphia put in place a comprehensive city plan that defined local community needs, the incongruity of imposing this structure upon two residential neighborhoods would likely been avoided. But we have no plan. The inaction of our leaders allowed PennDOT to ignore the nature of the neighborhoods it plans to connect.

Not only does the present design of the South Street Bridge indict the inaction of our present leaders, with a proposed lifespan of 75 years, the bridge will inextricably alter the neighborhoods and the lives of their residents it connects. We cannot let this happen. Action must be taken to mitigate its potential disastrous effects.

_________________

Links
The Pennsylvania Better Models Report
NYU Wagner School Report
PennDOT's Guide to Context Sensitive Solutions
Context-Sensitive Solutions.Org
Phillyblog on the South Street Bridge
The Chestnut Hill Local
National Bridge Design Award - Germantown Avenue Bridge

Absolutely Not.

It was announced today that Thomas Jefferson University has agreed to sell Eakin's masterwork, "The Gross Clinic," for $68M to a Wal-Mart heiress who plans to move it to Bentonville, Arkansas.

This on the day that that hag writes that load of nonsense. Like a punch in the gut.

She must eat at Geno's.

As quoted by the NYTimes:

Anne d’Harnoncourt, director of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, said she would immediately explore the possibility, perhaps in tandem with the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Art. “It’s a painting that really belongs in Philadelphia — his presence still resonates here,” she said of Eakins’s masterwork. “There may be a way we could band together to make it happen.”

After all, the Art Museum is on Eakin's Oval.

John Street wants to create a legacy. This would be it. Manage to pull this off and it sure would be harder to remember him for the bug.

Dougherty's got $83M sitting in his slush fund. Maybe if he sold a few properties instead of giving them away pay off political favors...

There's that surplus. Create that "rainy day fund." The value of the work is bound to appreciate.

Philadelphia Against Santorum needs something to do. You raised $150K in a year. And that was just to beat some schmo named Santorum. You think we could get that in time to add that to whatever the Art Museum, PAFA and the City can come up with to pay of Jeff? Are you up for it? Because it's doable. We can get this done.

It's like the Dream Garden by Maxfield Parish, the Tiffany's glass mosaic that Steve Wynn tried to buy out of the lobby of the Curtis Publishing Building a couple years back.

We rallied to save the Love statue. We can rally to save Eakins.

This is our cultural heritage. We cannot let it be bought.

If we sell it, we are selling are Philadelphia's future. Would we allow the Liberty Bell to be bought? Would we allow some Wal-Mart heiress to ship the Liberty Bell to Bentonville, Arkansas? This is no different.

Philadelphia is the home of the first hospital, founded by no less than Ben Franklin and is now one of the pre-eminent centers of medicine in the U.S., if not the world. That rich medical tradition that is captured by this painting. A rich history of medicine that will be plundered by the sale of this art.

We buy this and we would be investing in our city's cultural capital.

The Miseducation of William Reed

Metro reported today that William Reed, the owner of Johnny Brenda's and the Standard Tap, is "disheartened" by the receipt of $1M by House of Blues. Omitted from the story is the fact that last summer HOB received $4M for the Packard Building project.

If $1M left William Reed disheartened, what end may befall him when he learns of the additional $4M? I fear he may end up on the wrong end of a bottle of Elmer T. Lee while he stumbles furtively along Girard Avenue searching for the last, long-lost rivulet of Cohocksink Creek to drown away the wailing dirge of the bahdb.

$4M is a material omission that not only renders the Metro story incomplete, it renders it misleading. Today is June 5th, 18 days since my post disclosing actual amount of cash waived under the nose of the HOB: $5,000,000. How could it be that I scooped the entire Philadelphia press by nearly three weeks and counting?

Why is it left to me, some hobbyist who looses his demons upon the keys of a tired iBook G4 connected to the unprotected wireless connection belonging to the funeral parlour next door, to inform the citizenry? Has the press truly become so irrelevant?

Last week I posited a series of why's in reference to "why give the House of Blues $5 million to come to Philadelphia?" Upon further rumination, a trip to the third stomach of the amygdala and a series of walks with good old Thome the rat terrier, I've arrived upon a decent answer - maybe HOB will provide a venue to compete against the Tweeter Center. Camden gets all the large shows at the Tweeter Center. If HOB was located in Center City, imagine all those concert goers pouring out on to the streets late Friday night? It would be like the swarm that emanates from Irving Plaza or Hammerstein Ballroom.

Despite that hypothetical justification, I still have no answer to my and, apparently with some editing, William Reed's retort:

“You have a local person fighting to put something on with the neighborhood backing them and you’re going to give a $1 million gift to a company from [another state]?” he said. “Philadelphia should be [supporting its own].”

I am in complete agreement with Mr. Reed's sentiment. But I would like to remindstate for the public record that Mr. Reed is exactly $4M short in his estimation of the amount of the gifttaxpayer largess received by House of Blues.

$4M is a significant number, completely material to any discussion of the subsidy received by the HOB to enter the Philadelphia market.

William Reed is a business owner who is himself attempting to build his own music venue. I am sure the availability of $5M large is something that would sure facilitate Mr. Reed's efforts. Yet, he apears to be completely unaware.

William Reed, the owner of the Standard Tap and Johnny Brenda's, should know of the existence of the Commonwealth Financing Authority. Considering his business plan is entirely dependent on the renovation of brownfield sites, how can Mr. Reed not be intimately familiar with the machinations of Business in Our Sites?

If he knew of these programs, Mr. Reed would have corrected Mr. Cornfield's question premised on the House of Blue's receipt of a mere $1M. Mr. Reed would have known that House of Blues had already received the benefit of the $2 million loan to and the $2 million grant received by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia on behalf of House of Blues' plan to redevelop the Packard Building.

$5M large.

To be absolutely clear, I do not fault Mr. Reed.

So who should we fault?

Should we blame Harrisburg for failing to properly educate business owners? Sure, our politicians our lazy. In a perfect world, they should have done a better job of alerting the likes of Mr. Reed of their intent to hand out bags of cash. To regurgitate a tired truism, we don't live in a perfect world. And our politicians keep a tight lid on the availability of such funds to insure their cronies are first in line. But we do live in a world with subsidies provided by the First Amendment meant to facilitate the existence of an informed citizenry.

Which brings me to the point of this little diatribe.

What of our journalists' obligation to create an informed citizenry? I can hardly blame Josh and the bootstrapped organization that is the Philadelphia Metro. But what of Andrew Cassel or even the likes of Flavia "McMakeMePuke" Colgan? What of Will Bunch and his plans to reinvent the newspaper? Are they not culpable for the Miseducation of William Reed? While chasing the bright lights of MSNBC and Fox News, have they not forgotten their obligation to the likes of William Reed?

Does not the blame lie at their collective feet?

To revisit the central protagonist in this story, the Business in Our Sites program provided $4M of the $5M received by HOB. As described by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

"A $300 million funding pool of grants and loans is available to public and private real estate developers for the acquisition and development of these sites. The program puts special emphasis on communities that lack the resources necessary to invest in site preparation and the renovation of brownfield sites in order to prevent urban sprawl. Business in Our Sites is a vital component of Governor Rendell’s economic stimulus package."

Why are Philadelphia business owners like Mr. Reed not aware of this money? Why does House of Blues take these funds by default?

Unlike my last series of "whys," these are purely rhetorical. House of Blues, instead of the likes of Mr. Reed, will renovate the Packard Building because our press has failed to inform the public.

Which brings me to my answer to the question posited by Above Average Jane, as for our part of the bargain, I posit yet another reason - to make journalism relevant to the likes of William Reed.

The Disneylandification of Center City Continues

In an announcement that will leave many heads a shaking, the former host of Eagles' Post-Game Live announced today Pennsylvania awarded (bribed) $1M to House of Blues to open a new location at 15th and Chestnut. Just what Philadelphia needs, another chain that will supplant Philadelphia's local culture. Next thing you know, someone will be telling us Tastykake is closing its doors! Damn, that happened last Thursday!

Is it me or does installing a House of Blues seem a bit counter intuitive when the goal is to promote tourism? I can't imagine a whole lot of people in Chicago saying to themselves, "Hey, I'm tired of going to House of Blues Chicago, let's go to Philadelphia and check out their House of Blues!" For that matter, I really don't see Philly drawing a lot on tourists from L.A., Cleveland, Orlando, San Diego, New Orleans, Myrtle Beach, Atlantic City, Las Vegas or Anaheim on the basis of a new HOB. (Yes - these are all places with their own HOBs)

Seems to me that a much better use of PA's tourism subsidy would be to fix up places that make Philly unique, places that make people say "hey, I've always wanted to go see Philly's Italian Market and eat an authentic Sarcone's hoagie." Kinda like how people travel to Seattle to see Pike's Place Market.

Instead of installing yet another sterilized, big box that is just going to supplant a locally-owned venue, PA should be promoting what makes PA special. Let's say give Ortlieb's a $1M grant to put in a jazz hall in the dilapidated brewery that lies steps from its fabled stage. Sure would be a better use of the historic building than the inevitable condo (yuppie habitrail) that will eventually despoil that land.

The cash comes from Pennsylvania's First Industries Fund that is meant to promote agriculture and tourism. The money is addition to $4M previously provided to the House of Blues to subsidize its development of Packard Building location. All told House of Blues will now receive a whopping $5M to open its Philadelphia location. $5M to bring "several hundred" low skilled, minimum wage jobs to Philadelphia. Just what the city needs.

On the positive side, if Rendell's so eager to hand out taxpayer cash for corporate boondogles, maybe I should hit them up for the Pherris Wheel I want to build in Logan Square.

File Under:

• Planning
• Politics

The 175th and the Philadelphia 5

Day two of the Great Philadelphia Casino hearings has come and gone. I did not make it to the hearings. But I did spend the evening pounding the streets of Queen Village on behalf of Anne Dicker, candidate for State Representative for the 175th District.

Knocking on doors with flyers in hand, I need only to mention the word "casinos" and all of a sudden ears perk up, doors open and people become willing to hear what I have to say on behalf of Candidate Dicker.

The 175th district runs along the Delaware River from Queen Village to Fishtown. Four of the five casino applicants have selected sites within this district. The 175th pretty much sits at epicenter.

Walking door to door speaking to the residents of Queen Village, and before that, Fishtown, their minds are filled with one issue and one issue only - the casinos. I  spoke to more than 50 residents and every last one of them is opposed to the casinos. Every last one of them believes that the casinos will hurt their neighborhood. And every last one of them believes that the only people who stand to benefit are the politicians and their cronies.

Anne Dicker is running as the independent Democrat, apart from Philadelphia machine politics, apart from the moneyed interests who stand to benefit from a few thousand one-armed bandits. "Neighborhoods First" is the first commandment of her campaign. The implication - the other candidates will put other interests first, and the interests of neighborhoods who will live in thee shadow of at least one casino second. And I'm sure you don't need to be a resident of the 175th to know what I mean by other.

As the only independent Democrat in the May 16th primary, she can sincerely make this promise. If she wins the primary, she will have no one to answer to except the neighborhoods themselves. What other candidate can make that pledge? What other Philadelphia politician does not stand to benefit if their backers secure one of Philadelphia's two casino licenses?

That question is rhetorical.

The five applicants are competing for Philadelphia's two casino licenses. Four of the applicants have selected sites in the 175th district. The fifth candidate is Donald Trump. He proposes to put his casino in East Falls (See Rendell, you do get what you want!). But considering Trump's dubious track record - last year he had to sell off most of his interest in his casinos in order to finance their emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy - I doubt he'll end up securing a license. So that leaves the 175th as the likely host of two casinos. I would say definite but this is Philadelphia and Philadelphia politicians have been known to do some pretty stupid things (see my sidebar for the anecdote on the Athletics).

At present, the Pennsylvania Gaming Board has posted all of the Local Impact Reports on its website. I'm currently in the process of digesting the hundreds of pages of each report. Motivated by my general frustration with the coverage of this issue and the apparent public frustration with their government's handling of this issue, I plan to update this entry on a regular basis with additional detail for each of the five applicants

Hopefully, at the very least, I'll be figure out which politicians that purport to represent us, the citizens of Philadelphia, have their hands in the proverbial cookie jar. At least we know one (Anne Dicker) who doesn't.

So, click here and bookmark that page. Feel free to use it as your handy dandy Philadelphia Casino Cheat Sheet.

1. The TrumpStreet Casino &; Entertainment Center. The Donald plans to bring slots to the site of the former Budd Company factory. The casino would be located on Roberts Avenue between Henry Avenue and Fox Streets. I'm sure John Fox (and the overseers at Penn Charter for that matter - sure would bring a whole new twist to off campus privilege) will be roiling over in his grave knowing that his name is now better known for gambling than it is for pondering the principles of Quakerism under the old oak tree.

The first phase of the project, budgeted to run $350M, will consist of 3,000 slots, three movie theaters, and several restaurants - most notably a Chickie and Pete's. Among the other backers who stand to reap a windfall if TrumpStreet is granted is Pat Croce and Randal Pickett, the winner of last season's Apprentice.

The obvious problem with this project is Trump himself. His track record is at best "spotty." Spotty considering that prior to declaring bankruptcy in 2005, his casinos were so poorly run that they had fallen into considerable disrepair. The spottiest of all his properties likely was the Trump Plaza in A.C. There, the housekeepers were alotted a grand total 45 vacuum cleaners to clean the 904-room casino hotel. 45 vacuums were simply not enough. So rooms were vacuumed every other day (if at all). This is Trump's history and you know what they say about history repeating itself.

2. The Sugarhouse Casino. One of the three applicants to propose a site along the Delaware waterfront between the Ben Franklin Bridge and Girard Avenue. With no significant ties to the Philadelphia powers that be, Sugarhouse is being criticized as the outsider application - guess the peeps making this criticism must be firmly in the devil-you-know camp. The pincipal is Neil G. Blum, a billionaire real estate developer from Chicago. The rest of the partnership is filled out by Greg Carlin (CEO Sugarhouse), Midwest Gaming & Entertainment of Illinois, local developer Daniel Keating, attorney Richard Sprague, former State Supreme Court Justice William Lamb and auto magnet Robert Potamkin.

Of the five applications, this is definitely the slickest and to be honest, after my initial (and fairly superficial read), the most well thought out. After all, they do have a whole bunch of cool pictures.

Sugarhouse has already been recognized as a "preferred site" by Mayor Street's Gaming Task Force (the local phillyheads who are trying to horn in on what Harrisburg is trying to keep an exclusively state run affair). Like the other applicants, Sugarhouse proposes 3,000 slots, a theater and some restaurants. Interestingly and a possible plus for the neighborhood and the future development of the Delaware shoreline, Sugarhouse has promised to provide public access to the riverfront. Also of note, Sugarhouse plans to dock a riverboat casino at the site to provide a temporary casino while the main casino is being built. Guess these guys will also be in favor of deepening the Delaware shipping channel.

For those of you keeping your eye on the money, the initial build out is expected to run $450M.

3. Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia. Foxwoods intends to plop a casino down on Columbus Blvd (Delaware Avenue) between Tasker Avenue and Reed Street (across from the Home Depot. Like Trump, they plan to pinch their pennies and are coming in with on the low end with a $350M proposal. The fat cats behind this proposal are former-Phillie and current rib maven Gary Maddux, Ron Rubin, Ed Snider (Chairman, Comcast Spectacor), Melissa Silver (daughter of New Jersey Nets owner Lewis Katz), Quincy Jones, and Dawn Staley (Temple's Women's B-Ball coach). Filling out the list is (foot soldier) Spokeperson Maureen Garrity.

The map of the proposed site is shown below.



4. Planet Hollywood's Riverwalk Casino. What's the deal with so many applicants who have declared bankruptcy in the last few years? (Trump and Planet Hollywood) I need me some bankruptcy - maybe I'll snag a license too. Okay, enough editorializing. Back to business.

This proposed site is the former home of a city incinerator. The ownership group managed to snag a sweet deal on the property after Penn's Landing Corp., the current owner of the 11.5 acre site, voted two weeks prior to the due date for applications to lease the site to Planet Hollywood from now to the end of time (2089 if you are not Darren Daulton).

The backers of the Planet Hollywood reads like a veritable who's who in Philadelphia greasy palms. We start off with William R. Miller (local Political Soothsayer Extraordinaire) and Robert Earl (CEO Planet Hollywood). Next we move on the the truly fat cats: Ken Trujillo, Mayor Street's former city solicitor; Willie Johnson, known affectionatly as "a major campaign contributor for Street" now looking for the proverbial "big payback;" SEPTA board member Herman Wooden (hey, shouldn't running a dysfunctional public entity disqualify you from being granted the right to run another???); Philadelphia Parking Authority Chairman Joe Ashdale; the talk show host on WURD (900AM) Bill Anderson. As already noted by some of the Inquirrer coverage, this group has the race card as its central strategy.

Proposed cost: $380M.

5. Pinnacle Entertainment Casino. Not one to sit idly by, Pinnacle is a very busy body these days. In addition to seeking approval of their application to build a 3,000 slot casino off the Girard Avenue exit of I-95, Pinnacle is currently involved in a bidding war to acquire Aztar, the owner of the world famous Tropicana casinos. The proposed site consists of 27 acres in Fishtown, the former home of the Cramp Shipyard. The rights to this land was previously held by Harrah's Entertainment, but after G-Love got his hands on Chester Downs, Harrah's ditched Fishtown like a two dollar...

Like Sugarhouse, this project also has a lack of local ties (a good thing in my opinion as they will not already be habituated to Philadelphia government's standard practice of ignoring its citizenry). William Hundley, the president of Pinnacle, is the only insider my rather limited research has been able to uncover at this time.

Like every other applicant, these guys have their standard movie theatre, retail and restaurants. These guys do manage to out do the others with the promise of a 12-screen megaplex. Like Sugarhouse, these guys apparently have put a bit of thought into how to make the casino fit into the neighborhood (rather than how to pay off city politicians in order to ignore the neighborhood). They expect the casino to draw approximately 6.8 million visitors per year. In order to connect what will likely be a monolithic, windowless facade to its environs, Pinnacle has proposed an extensive outdoor space that includes an outdoor skating rink.

File Under:

• Politics
• Planning