What Were They Thinking?

Yesterday Fox 7 interviewed three candidates for the city council at-large positions, and some of the results were quite disappointing. Although one candidate seemed open to saving Roberts Stadium (Mr. Steve Smith), the rest of the candidates in this article seemed to lean strongly in favor of demolishing Roberts Stadium. They didn't give a verbal commitment to save Roberts Stadium and they didn't talk about the great history that Roberts Stadium contains within her four walls that local residents value deeply. Any candidate who supports demolition is in the minority with this viewpoint but it still makes you wonder: Do some of these candidates really see the potential we have with this historic venue?

Let's start with the worst Roberts Stadium opponent first...

Jonathan Weaver

"It needs to go, quite frankly its the worst stadium I've ever seen in my life,"

All I can say is WOW. Granted I have been to A LOT of stadiums, arenas, and ballparks all across the U.S and Canada and I'm not sure how many Mr. Weaver has been to but Roberts Stadium is FAR from the worst stadium/arena. It's not even close. I have seen arenas with troughs for urinals, falling in roofs, half paved floors, and signs with spiders all over them. Like I have been saying in previous blog posts, Roberts Stadium is in far better shape than city hall would like for you to believe...

http://saverobertsstadium.blogspot.com/2010/11/rumors-of-roberts-stadiums-demise-has.html
http://saverobertsstadium.blogspot.com/2010/12/hntb-existing-roberts-stadium-building.html

Furthermore, this comment goes against the belief of local citizens. I, Mr. Rick Davis, and several of his poll walkers have gone through the neighborhoods around Roberts Stadium. Not ONE of those neighbors wanted Roberts Stadium gone. They did however want Mr. Weaver gone from office last year...

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/nov/02/fluty-unseats-weaver-vanderburgh-assessor-race-gri/

Lastly, this building can't be too bad. The lowered floor was designed by architect Ralph Legeman. Mr. Legeman would later patent the idea of a below ground floor and would go on to design over 27 arena bowls around the Midwest. He even designed his house here in Evansville to replicate Roberts Stadium.

Make no mistake, Ralph Legeman designed a damn good looking stadium/arena and Hank Roberts did a wonderful job fighting to get it built!

Connor O'Daniel

"It's irresponsible to keep that thing moth balled forever at $400,000 a year that's money that should go to our parks,"

Several things here...

1. It would be irresponsible to leave Roberts Stadium empty when it has great potential as a mid-sized arena.

2. NO, zero funds need to go to the parks department until they have produced a clear master plan for what they plan on doing for our parks. Until then, it will be money thrown out the window. Back in 2002, the parks department undertook an amazing master plan for Garvin Park which would have included a bridge over to Kleymeyer Park. If this plan would have been realized we would have already been half way to upgrading Kleymeyer Park in order to put 8 vintage MLB style baseball fields there which I would match-up against Dunn's wesselman ball fields plan ANY DAY of the week.

Instead, the parks department struck a deal with Dunn to build 8 more dull, boring ball fields at the same time parks such as Sunset, Garvin, Kleymeyer, and Vann were rotting away. Giving the parks department more money, now THAT would be irresponsible.

3. When did the mothball costs go up to $400,000? It really amazes me how this estimate keeps going up from $280,000 to $300,000 and now $400,000.

4. Why not put the $400,000 towards raising the floor back up where we can shut the pumps off? In a scaled back Roberts Stadium, we have the potential for indoor football, indoor soccer, and minor league basketball. One local citizen already has 2 teams lined up and shouldn't have too hard of a time getting the third.

5. If we demolish Roberts Stadium and give funding to the parks, aren't we just going to have to take it back to maintain whatever goes on the Roberts Stadium lot? Demolition is a zero-sum game...

http://saverobertsstadium.blogspot.com/2011/04/demolition-is-zero-sum-game.html

Steve Smith

"If we can't come up with an economically viable plan, it costs $15,000 t a month to keep it open,"

I certainly find this comment to be acceptable because it is true that it would cost money to maintain a mothballed Roberts Stadium, and I certainly don't want this great building to sit there collecting dust. However, what would the costs be of an open lot/park? How many tourists would that attract? How many resources would that pull away from our parks department? We HAVE to find a use for Roberts Stadium!

The main thing here is that this point is moot. There are several great plans that are economically viable for Roberts Stadium. In order to implement one though, city hall must realize this is going to take funding, but it is funding that would be needed anyways if you were to demolish the building (like I said in the demolition post).

If worse came to worst, at least leave the building open for greenway walkers to jog around during snowy and rainy days. Many arenas do this already, and it's quite successful.

Overall, I was quite disappointed in some of the responses given by a couple of the candidates towards Roberts Stadium. I understand this is "the year of the tea party," but if we are just going to look at Roberts Stadium from a dollars and cents standpoint, we aren't going to get too far. Yes, Roberts Stadium can and will continue to make money. Heck, the building is completely paid off (How many other government buildings can say that?).

If we are going to truly maximize Roberts Stadium's potential we must respect the great history and nostalgia of this Evansville icon. That is when we will be able to do great things with Roberts Stadium.

It is good to note though that the two candidates who were not in the interview ( Dr. Dan Adams and Sonya Kates Nixon) both support keeping Roberts Stadium and I am thoroughly convinced the majority of the council will support Roberts Stadium this time next year.

With the six candidates on the right giving strong verbal commitments to save Roberts Stadium, and Mr. Steve Smith giving a strong verbal commitment to fight to find an economically viable option for Roberts Stadium, we should be in great shape this time next year.

However, this is where you the voter and viewer of this blog can get involved. You must understand the importance of only voting for those candidates who support Roberts Stadium.

On May 3rd, remember those who will remember Roberts Stadium!