City Council needs to take the Sixers arena proposal seriously | Editorial

Are you “too fly” to ride SEPTA?

City Councilmember Jay Young thinks he is. During City Council’s 41 hours of public hearings on the proposed Market Street Sixers arena, Young, an arena opponent, said that folks in his community wear their “fly clothes” to games, and they don’t wear those fly clothes on SEPTA.

Given SEPTA’s importance to Philadelphia’s economic development, and the system’s looming fiscal crisis — which may trigger fare increases and service cuts beginning next year — Young’s trash-talking is ill-timed, misguided, and poorly informed. If Young ever bothered to leave his taxpayer-provided city-issued car at home and join the tens of thousands of his constituents who ride SEPTA every day, perhaps he might have known better.

Unfortunately, Young’s sentiment was not an outlier during last week’s hearings.

The Sixers arena plan comes with significant potential gains and challenges to Center City and its neighbors. It demands thoughtful consideration and discussion, yet some Council members seem determined to take a self-serving and flippant approach, with questions more oriented toward posturing and extracting their own personal pounds of flesh than improving the proposal.

» READ MORE: Center City arena plan is missing its two most positive proposals | Editorial

City Councilmember Nicolas O’Rourke questioned why the arena debate was taking up so many hours of Council’s time. (Of course, if fewer hearings had been scheduled on the topic, O’Rourke — who, in less than a year on Council, has become one of its most reliable gadflies — would likely complain about a lack of scrutiny.)

Given how long Council typically spends on ceremonial bills and honorifics, any time used to vet the arena proposal would be well spent — if Council acts earnestly.

It was often left to Council President Kenyatta Johnson to steer the sometimes meandering proceedings back into productive territory. Johnson asked pertinent questions on key concerns held by the public, including getting a commitment from Deputy Managing Director for Transportation and Infrastructure Michael Carroll that the arena would not place an undue strain on access to nearby Jefferson Hospital.

Administration officials, for their part, were well-prepared for questions both silly and serious.

While Mayor Cherelle L. Parker herself has admitted that she is, at times, “building the plane while I’m flying it,” Chief of Staff Tiffany W. Thurman, City Solicitor Renee Garcia, Director of Planning and Development Jessie Lawrence, and Chief Policy Officer Sophie Bryan demonstrated a reassuring grasp of the details and a strong commitment to ensuring that the best interests of Philadelphians are served by the undertaking.

The hearings aren’t Council’s first fumble in the arena debate.

City Councilmember Mark Squilla, whose district includes the prospective arena site, removed a proposed apartment tower that could have added needed vitality to both Chinatown and East Market Street. As planning and development’s Lawrence pointed out during the hearing, Market Street is a failed commercial corridor. A successful new high-rise could induce other landowners along Market to get building.

Squilla has since partnered with the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corp. to build a 56-unit tower at 11th and Winter. He’s also proposed new zoning limits in Chinatown, aimed at curbing the potential encroachment of sports bars and nightclubs. These are steps in the right direction. But when it comes to housing in Center City, more is more.

There is still time for the city’s lawmakers to change their approach to the arena debate and help produce an improved proposal. Council can start by reinserting the housing tower into the plan and overhauling the community benefits agreement to ensure Chinatown and other nearby neighborhoods receive the lion’s share of the proposed $50 million in the compact, rather than the mayor’s pet projects.

» READ MORE: Now that Mayor Parker backs the Sixers arena, whither Chinatown? | Editorial

Parker’s initiatives like year-round school and job training programs may be worthwhile, but they are ultimately citywide priorities that have little to do with the arena itself. The community benefits funds would be used most effectively if they were focused on mitigating traffic and public safety concerns, and making sure businesses affected by the disruption of construction are compensated.

Additionally, Council might consider making requests that would enhance the project for those closest to it. For example, space could be set aside on the arena’s ground floor for restaurants now located in Chinatown and at the nearby Reading Terminal Market. Council could also ask the Sixers to follow the lead of Seattle’s Climate Pledge Arena, which includes a public transportation voucher with every ticket.

The Sixers should commit to contributing more money to the community benefits agreement. It also wouldn’t hurt if one of the team owners showed at least a modicum of respect to the proceedings by actually attending the hearings.

Hovering over Council’s deliberations, of course, is the Sixers’ threatened move to New Jersey if the arena isn’t built in Center City. That scenario appeared unlikely after the team secured Parker’s support and convinced the majority of Council to hold hearings considering the proposal.

But if there’s one thing Philadelphia sports fans know too well is that even when the Sixers are ahead, a victory is hardly assured.