Philly faith leaders criticize arena agreement with Sixers

Have a question about Philly’s neighborhoods or the systems that shape them? PlanPhilly reporters want to hear from you! Ask us a question or send us a story idea you think we should cover.

A group of Philadelphia clergymen gathered Tuesday to denounce Mayor Cherelle Parker’s agreement with the 76ers for a new basketball arena. They also urged City Council not to “fast track” the legislative process that could hand the team the approvals it needs to build the $1.5 billion facility on Market Street.

“Slow your roll,” said Rev. Gregory Edwards, interim executive director of POWER Interfaith, during a news conference in Center City. “There is no need to rush this decision.”

Standing outside Mother Bethel AME Church, Edwards and others called on lawmakers to perform due diligence before voting on a project that will impact constituents across the city. Failure to do that, they said, will further erode public trust in local government, and set a bad precedent for how development happens in Philadelphia.

“We stand here today challenging the assumption that profit-driven projects should automatically be at the forefront of urban planning. Instead, we call for a democratic process and an economy that values people over profits,” said Rev. Robin Hynicka, who leads Arch Street United Methodist Church, which sits a few blocks from the proposed site for the arena.

The group, whose criticisms are at odds with the Black Clergy of Philadelphia, also took aim at the community benefits agreement the administration negotiated with the Sixers.

A community benefits agreement is a legally binding document that typically spells out what amenities and mitigations a developer is required to provide in exchange for support for a real estate project. On Tuesday, speaker after speaker said the agreement — $50 million over 30 years — is short on funding and community input, especially from Chinatown.

Neighborhood residents and business owners have strongly opposed the arena since it was announced two years ago. Under the agreement, Chinatown and other communities near the facility would collectively receive half of the $50 million. The rest of the money would be used to support citywide initiatives.

“If it’s called a community benefits agreement, who from the community was at the table when this was coming together? And who particular in the community is benefiting?” Councilman Nicolas O’Rourke said.

He also questioned the decision to lease the land for the arena to the Sixers, a move that enables the franchise to avoid paying property taxes. Under the agreement, the team will instead make PILOTS — payments in lieu of taxes — to the city, which critics say amounts to a subsidy because the payments will be cheaper than what the Sixers would lay out for taxes if they owned the land.

A spokesperson for Mayor Parker did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The mayor announced her support for the arena last month, saying in a video posted to social media that it will generate millions in new tax revenue, create hundreds of jobs and help revitalize Market East. The Sixers have made similar arguments since announcing the project.

During a recent news conference, Parker told a friendly crowd the administration’s agreement with the Sixers is “about access to economic opportunity for all in Philadelphia,” adding that she “made sure that we had you in mind.”

Parker has said she will transmit a package of bills to City Council on Oct. 24. That is the earliest date that Councilmember Mark Squilla, whose district would include the arena, could introduce the legislation. The Sixers have said they need approvals for the project by the end of the year — so the arena can open for the 2031-32 season.

Squilla on Tuesday reiterated the public will have 30 days to review the legislation beforehand. That clock started ticking in late September after the administration posted draft legislation online.

The councilmember, in an email, also appeared to push back on the assertion that the approvals process was moving too quickly.

“We have been discussing this proposal for over 2 years,” wrote Squilla.