Fixing the River

The commission should create two plans for the waterfront, one with, and one without casinos.

by Bruce Schimmel

In a holiday rush a couple weeks ago, I mistakenly sent out an early draft of this column — which was printed and which contained an error. I wrote, incorrectly, that Janice Woodcock, the mayor's new head of the City Planning Commission, had joined with those asking for a delay in selecting Philadelphia's casino sites ["Canon Blasts," Dec. 28, 2006].

I had wanted Woodcock to tell Street what so many planning professionals mutter off-the-record, but few dare to say aloud: Casinos don't belong on the riverfront.

I was hoping for a riverfront advisory group with integrity. But instead, the mayor seems to be using this group to distract and diffuse casino opposition. A credible riverfront advisory process is still possible, but it will mean giving weight to those on both sides of the casino question, not just to those who agree with the mayor.

My hopes for an independent riverfront group had mistakenly come alive, after I saw their open letter to the mayor in the Daily News, published just before the casino sites were selected.

In that letter, Woodcock reported that many of the 850 people who attended its forums felt left out of the casino decision-making process. The letter powerfully reiterated concerns over traffic, waterfront access, sensitive neighborhoods and the environment — concerns that demanded a delay.

Addressed to a mayor who gives his advisors so little latitude, this sounded like a breakthrough. By asking for a delay and publicly expressing misgivings over casinos, Woodcock —- I thought — had found her public voice.

But on closer reading, picking through the letter's careful language, I was wrong. On the subject of casinos, the advisory group's professional leadership had actually remained silent.

I e-mailed Woodcock, and expected a clarification. What I got was extraordinary. Woodcock e-mailed that she needed a "press clearance" to speak with me, even about a correction. And that's the last I heard.

Seems that Street holds Woodcock on so short a leash that she's even been prohibited from commenting on a published error.

Sadly, John Street has co-opted yet another City Planning Commission director, which is what I had earlier feared.

Because in mid-December, Street released a report to the Gaming Control Board, asking it to select the Riverwalk Casino. This report contained "a very serious analysis," Street told reporters assembled in City Hall. Standing next to the mayor was City Solicitor Romulo Diaz and Woodcock.

After the meeting, I asked how "serious" could a report be that isn't signed? But when I asked about the author, I was met with silence. Suddenly, Diaz and Woodcock said that they'd share responsibility for the report. Responsibility, maybe, but I doubt actual authorship. Several sources report that Woodcock had submitted entirely different recommendations to the mayor, which he threw out. (Woodcock declined comment.)

To me, this now means that whenever Woodcock speaks, you'll hear only the mayor's voice.

For despite Woodcock's grandiloquent open letter expressing widespread casino concerns, its ultimate thrust was to confirm that the riverfront planning group would incorporate casino designs into their waterfront plans. It's a pledge she made even before the Gaming Control Board announced that the Delaware riverfront would get two casinos.

Woodcock's capitulations bode ill for the integrity of the Central Delaware Advisory Group. And what it will take to regain its integrity is to honor those uncounted thousands who object to the casinos. The planning group should present two different plans for the waterfront, one with, and one without casinos.

Despite their conditional licenses, the casinos are still far from a done deal. And though some planners have been silenced, there are professionals who have not. Especially those who believe that having a "casino corridor" between Chester and Bensalem will mean a permanent traffic tsunami.

(bruce@schimmel.com)