It’s the second week of Philadelphia City Council’s public hearings on the Sixers’ proposed $1.3 billion arena, and plenty of concerns still hang in the air.
The controversial plan is staunchly supported by Mayor Cherelle L. Parker, the Black clergy of Philadelphia, and the Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Council, all of whom argue it will be an economic boon to the city.
It’s opposed by a majority of Chinatown residents and business owners, as well as myriad activist groups in nearby neighborhoods and throughout the city who have consistently protested the plan since its inception two years ago. Those critics cite a city-commissioned impact study that said the arena could “potentially result in the loss of Chinatown’s core identity and regional significance,” through indirect displacement of the neighborhood’s residents and businesses. A poll sponsored by an activist group found the proposal broadly unpopular with city residents.
Public hearings for the project will continue through the first week of December — the last chance for the Council to pass arena-enabling legislation this calendar year, and the Sixers’ stated deadline to move forward with the project.
SEPTA was expected to testify in this week’s coming hearings, but it’s unclear whether that will come to pass.
Last week, officials of Mayor Cherelle L. Parker’s administration on Tuesday and two corporate representatives for the 76ers team on Wednesday were in the council’s hot seat. Both hearings lasted over four hours, with heavy questioning from lawmakers.
If you missed last week’s drama, the most important thing to understand is that the city and the Sixers appear to be at a stalemate over funding for two key parts of the arena plan — and council votes that will decide the matter may hang in the balance.
The first issue: SEPTA
The Sixers’ plan includes an expectation that 40% of fans attending an event will use public transit to get to the arena in Center City, saying their modeling shows that the resulting congestion won’t cause gridlock in the area. To handle these train commuters, the authority would need to run additional trains on the regional rail. SEPTA, though, is navigating a “death spiral” financial crisis and previewed plans to raise fare prices and make sweeping service cuts absent a funding solution. During last week’s hearings, both city officials and Sixers representatives insisted they would not cover the costs of increased operations.
Councilmember Cindy Bass raised the concern on Tuesday, explaining that she had met with SEPTA officials prior to the hearing.
“SEPTA is saying they’re not paying for these costs,” Bass said. “The question is, ‘Who’s gonna do it?’ ”
Officials from Parker’s administration told lawmakers that the city would not direct any taxpayer dollars towards arena-caused changes in SEPTA’s operation, and said Parker’s first budget already increased local funding to the authority.
“We have done our part to support SEPTA,” Office of Transportation and Infrastructure Systems Deputy Managing Director Michael Carroll said.
Officials said that the Sixers and SEPTA would need to negotiate a funding plan among themselves, highlighting that the sports team had already agreed to cover the cost of physical changes to the agency’s Jefferson Station brought on by arena construction.
But on Wednesday, representatives for the Sixers told the council that those costs would be the only ones they would help SEPTA with — they would not fund additional rail service.
Lawmakers urged the Sixers to move more quickly in their negotiations with the transit authority, which are ongoing.
The second issue: CBA
The arena comes with a proposed community benefits agreement, or CBA, negotiated between Parker and the Sixers, which would earmark $50 million for initiatives both citywide and for neighborhoods closest to the arena. Critics have pointed out that community stakeholders were not involved in the process of drafting the CBA, and anti-arena activists argue that no amount of money would be enough to make up for the displacement they expect the project to cause.
Last week, city officials and Sixers representatives both pushed back on the notion of adding more funding to the community benefits agreement.
When asked by Councilmember Isaiah Thomas on Tuesday whether the administration was open to renegotiating any part of the CBA’s content, Mayoral Chief of Staff Tiffany Thurman answered in the negative.
“We stand by the CBA that we introduced,” Thurman said.
Then, on Wednesday, the Sixers gave a hard “no” to the same question.
“Fifty million [dollars] is the number we can support. We can’t go above that,” said David Gould, chief corporate affairs officer to Sixers’ owning company Harris Blitzer.
Councilmembers Jim Harrity and Jamie Gauthier pressed the issue, arguing that the CBA was an inadequate proposal to address the concerns of Chinatown residents and store owners, but Gould did not waver.
“There is no single developer that will be able to guarantee … the preservation of any neighborhood,” he said.
Multiple councilmembers have said that their vote would hinge on the team contributing more funds to the city.
Councilmember Mark Squilla, whose district includes the proposed arena site, said on Wednesday that he was unsure there would be enough votes among councilmembers to pass legislation enabling the project to move forward.
