..........
.........,
Cl)
10
Arcades wear black. At least that
is how they are perceived by the
homespun people of Northeast
Philadelphia, a dense area of clusters
of middle-class row homes inhabited
primarily by upper-level blue collar
and lower-level white collar workers.
It is not a poverty-stricken area; in
fact , the bay windows in the living
rooms do not leave a hint of a streak
mark and the small lawns of the row
houses are manicured as it they were
estates.
Like many neighborhood sections
of large cities, Northeast Philadelphia
is like a small town in itself. If it ever
seceded from the rest of the city, the
Northeast's 400,000 citizens would
comprise the second largest city in
Pennsylvania, ranking behind only
Philadelphia.
Therefore, it is easy to see that
although the residents of the North-
east still trim their lawns, tip the
newsboy, and try to preserve their
pristine neighborhood with services
like town watches , they are not too
far removed from the rest of the city
to watch the decay caused by crime
and drugs that is chewing away at the
fabric of Philadelphia's society.
That is why the people of North-
east Philadelphia fear arcades in
their part of town. They look upon
them as places where hoodlums con-
gregate to sell drugs, hang out and
prey upon children, who at an
impressionable age, may one day dip
into their pockets for something
other than a quarter to play a video
machine ... maybe a knife or a $10 bill
to purchase drugs.
That is why the people of North-
east Philadelphia have for the last
five months been fighting to prevent
four arcades from operating in their
part of town . On at least two occa-
sions, they have been successful in
keeping an arcade from opening.
Presently, there are five arcades in
the Northeast section of Philadelphia.
Three are in shopping malls, where
they are rarely opposed by the com-
munity ("out of sight, out of mind").
One arcade is tucked away in the
elbow of a remote neighborhood.
The other opened prior to a bill intro-
duced in August 1980 by Philaqelphia
City Council that gave arcades a
regulated-use zoning status.
The main drag in the Northeast is
Frankford Avenue, a bustling shop-
ping strip that is bordered by sizeable
senior citizen communities. When
zoning variances were sought for
two arcades on Frankford Avenue
last September, the merchants of
Frankford Avenue and adult resi-
dents in the nearby blocks formed a
vigilante coalition to prevent the
arcades from opening.
"We have enough trouble in this
area without having more pro-
blems," said Peter Vizza, president
of the local merchants' association.
"There have been arcades here in
the past and they've always bred the
same problems with kids who hang
out there and don't go to school.
"The elderly don't want to come
out and people don't want to walk on
the avenue at night, and this hurts
business. We're trying so hard to get
the area back on its feet and these
arcades are the perfect thing to tear
it down," Vizza added.
Jack Mulholland, whose family
has owned the Mayfair Diner on
Frankford Avenue for 49 years, said,
"We're upset. The kids hanging
around will make it an instant hang-
out."
Community fights
The merchants and community
residents also contacted local City
Council representatives, asking
them to apply pressure to the Zoning
Board of Adjustment in the form of
letters of protest. In addition, the citi-
zens' coalition scheduled and pub-
licly announced a meeting to plan
strategy to protest the variances at
their October hearings. The meeting
was held October 8, in the home of a
concerned citizen who acted as the
mentor for more than 30 adults ,
many of whom were senior citizens.
When the first hearing was held
October 13 for a proposed 10-
machine arcade at 7341 Frankford
Avenue, nearly 30 residents and
local politicans attended the hearing
to file testimony denouncing the
arcade. Letters of protest were pre-
sented to the zoning board by four
politicans.
One of the major contentions of
the citizens and politicians was that if
the arcade was permitted on the
heavily traveled avenue , youths
would gather outside the amusement
facility and make it difficult for elderly
shoppers to walk without interfer-
ence while they shopped.
A few weeks later, the zoning
board rejected the arcade proposal.
The October 6 hearing for the
other proposed Frankford Avenue
arcade, a 75-machine facility , was
postponed because the parties seek-
ing the zoning variance failed to post
notice of their request. Their
rescheduled appearance in front of
the zoning board was cancelled
when they failed to appear for the
hearing and the property landlord,
obliging the pleas of the community
residents, stated that he would
refuse to rent to an arcade operator.
(continued on page 15)