Did you see that former Mayors Ed Rendell and John Street resurrected that ol’ buddy movie of theirs and penned a joint op-ed in the Inquirer, calling for a pause in the consideration of a new home for the Sixers until a new Mayor and, essentially, new Council, can weigh in?
“We both agree on one very important key to a smooth transition: leaving game-changing decisions that can redefine the city’s future to our newly elected successor,” they write. A new arena on East Market Street, abutting Chinatown, they argue, is something with such vast economic and cultural implications that the debate over it should be held by those who would be accountable to voters upon the plan’s ultimate implementation. As usual, it’s a reasonable proposition put forth by these venerable elder statesmen.
That so few of the candidates took that broader view is not a good sign that, when the arena comes to fruition — or not — we’ll have Rendell and Street-like leaders shaping policy for the common good.
But what if — unlike leaders such as Rendell and Street, both of whom tried to govern without fear — our current candidates for mayor are too timid to wade into the turbulence of arena politics? What if those who aspire to City Hall are intimidated by the loudest, angriest voices from Chinatown? What if they cower at the prospect of name-calling, progressive rhetoric?
What if they place the interests of the building trades above all else? What if, after talking ad nauseam on the campaign trail about how we need leadership, our would-be mayors, when asked simply where they stand on the specter of a Sixers arena, speak in non-sequitur — or, worse, refuse to answer? Shrinking, in other words, from this test of character and leadership?
The prospect of a downtown arena, after all, is about more than one neighborhood. (Yesterday, the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation announced its opposition to the project.) It’s about an economic development strategy for a city of some 1.5 million people. It could be a game-changer, which is why we need a reasoned debate about it: If it does happen, the next mayor will need a heady mix of political and implementation skills in order to see it through. If it doesn’t, there will remain a gaping question: What’s the plan for the veritable wasteland that is Market East?
Wouldn’t answering the arena question forthrightly — spelling out who you are willing to piss off in pursuit of a greater good — be a shining example of leadership in action?
To be clear: This isn’t to weigh in yea or nay on the prospect of an inner city arena, though I have argued that, done right, there’s evidence that such projects can fuel inclusive economic development. Key words there? If done right.
Do you have enough faith in our political class that the highfalutin idea of an arena at 10th and Market won’t fall prey to our byzantine politics, like the scourge of councilmanic prerogative, which has already intruded upon the good governance potential of this project?
(Okay, District Council autocrat, you want your grubby little hands all over some 16-unit apartment building? Have at it. But that the fate of a major part of a city’s economic development future just might depend on the machinations of Councilmember Mark Squilla seems like we’re once again channeling Einstein on insanity: Doing the same thing over and over — and expecting a different result.)
Agita on display
The evidence for such agita was on full display at last week’s Center City Business Association’s mayoral forum, hosted by 6abc. Anchor Rick Williams asked: “Your opinion about the new Sixers stadium: Are you for it, are you against, and should the next mayor decide?”
Pretty straightforward question, no? Yet, beyond belief, less than 10 weeks out from an election, many candidates were either unprepared to answer it. Or, worse, they deflected, likely out of crass political calculation. Here’s how the major candidates responded:
“We need to do big things in this city,” Jeff Brown said, noting that a project “where the City doesn’t invest any money and we get a new employer” like the Sixers was “very intriguing.” The team, however, would have to “listen to the concerns of Chinatown and address it” to win his support.
A common refrain from all the candidates at last week’s forum was the city’s need for leadership. Yet, on this question, what we heard was equivocation.
Allan Domb said there is actually a “win-win” solution: “I’m in favor of the stadium providing we satisfy the concerns of Chinatown but in addition to that, I’m in favor of capping Vine Street from the Ben Franklin Bridge all the way across and recovering that land so Chinatown can bridge the north and south together, which would be a huge win for Chinatown.”
Amazingly, a handful of candidates didn’t feel compelled to stake out a position on the matter at all. “I have not made the ultimate decision on this issue,” Derek Green said, citing “unanswered questions.”
“Those doors, if they ever do open, won’t happen until 2032 at the earliest,” said Helen Gym. “And I do not intend to wait for a revitalized Market East that goes from City Hall to the river.”
Republican David Oh echoed Green, saying he’s seen no documentation from the Sixers and “I can’t say I’m for or against it until I’ve seen this paperwork.”
Cherelle Parker also punted. “I have not publicly affirmed whether I’m for or against,” she said. “I do know that residents in any neighborhood have a right to have a say in what land use takes place in their community. With that being said, when we’re talking about the poorest big city in the nation, before we have an express reflexive opposition, how about we actually know the details about what is being proposed.”
Maria Quiñones Sánchez didn’t even mention the arena. Instead, she emphasized that “Chinatown adds a day of travel for folks here in the city of Philadelphia, so they’re an economic engine we should value as part of this process.”
Maria Quiñones Sánchez, like Domb, cited the potential for Chinatown of capping Vine Street, but she didn’t even mention the arena. Instead, she emphasized that, “Chinatown adds a day of travel for folks here in the city of Philadelphia, so they’re an economic engine we should value as part of this process.”
Rebecca Rhynhart joined in the on-the-one-hand-on-the-other parade. “Any project of this magnitude needs to be seriously considered, in my view,” she said. “There will be a tremendous amount of jobs and obviously there’s a lot of excitement about a downtown stadium. With that said, the community needs to feel comfortable, and obviously right now, there isn’t a lot of comfort. As Mayor, I’d bring the Sixers in and bring the community in and really understand what the proposal is and what the community needs are.”
Um, duh.
None of these are unreasonable responses, I guess, but aren’t you struck by their absolute obviousness? Can you not feel the fearful calculation behind them? Do you hear wannabe leaders who have a vision for the future? Or do you hear candidates who are playing disparate voting blocs off one another in their respective ever-chattering minds?
A common refrain from all the candidates at last week’s forum was the city’s need for leadership. Yet, on this question, what we heard was equivocation. I’m reminded of that straightest of shooters, Harry Truman, who once said, “Bring me a one-armed economist. All my economists say, On one hand, then, But on the other hand … ”
Amazingly, a handful of candidates didn’t feel compelled to stake out a position on the matter at all. “I have not made the ultimate decision on this issue,” Derek Green said, citing “unanswered questions.”
In politics, leadership is often about showing that you can answer questions and question answers in equal measure, and that you have the stones to say no to your friends and contributors. Well, wouldn’t answering the arena question forthrightly — spelling out who you are willing to piss off in pursuit of a greater good — be a shining example of leadership in action? Isn’t it leadership to have made a decision before Election Day on whether you think a downtown arena can drive inclusive growth or not?
For those who complained in their answers that they don’t have enough information to make a credible decision, they should talk to former mayors: You never have enough information. That’s why the decision reached your desk — because those below where the buck stops didn’t have enough information.
Interestingly, Williams’ question didn’t even mention Chinatown. Yet each candidate, to one degree or another, went there. That speaks to the balkanized smallness of our politics. The question about revitalizing Market East should center around the question of whether a strategy — any strategy — grows the city as a whole, or not, and what its potential might be for closing our ever-widening income and wealth gaps.
That so few of the candidates took that broader view is not a good sign that, when the arena comes to fruition — or not — we’ll have Rendell and Street-like leaders shaping policy for the common good.
MORE FACTS + FEELINGS ABOUT THE 2023 PHILADELPHIA MAYOR’S RACE
