 |
| http://5.smartpassiveincome.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/page-turn-3d.jpg |
By now, most of the Evansville community is aware of the "Page 13" controversy. For those who would like to view this page and the entire report, you can do so by clicking on the link below...
http://media.courierpress.com/media/static/Roberts_report.pdf
Like I talked about yesterday, Page 13 is completely inaccurate from top to bottom and therefore must be omitted for this report to have any credibility. The basic inaccuracies are the following...
1. Never, and I mean never, were any of these "conclusions" agreed upon by the task force. This page is trying to put words into the task force's mouth.
2. The "conclusions" are inaccurate. Being the only member on the task force with a background in sports and arenas, I didn't expect the task force to understand the difference between a mid-sized arena and a premier arena nor did I expect them to understand the aspects of a mid-sized arena. It was my job to explain a mid-sized arena to the task force, the mayor, and our city in the report which is what I did.
However, it doesn't take an arenaologist to understand that you cannot build a new mid-sized arena for the $4 million to $4.5 million it is estimated to cost to repair Roberts Stadium, much less construct an arena and a new green space on the lot for an additional $1.75 million to $2 million.
Note: I went into more detail about these inaccuracies yesterday...
http://saverobertsstadium.blogspot.com/2012/04/save-roberts-stadium-meets-press.html
Basically, there are two points that sum up why this page should be omitted
1. It is inaccurate
2. It is not the official view of the task force
Given these basic truths, you would assume that our task force leaders would already have this page omitted. But in today's C&P, they decided to double down on their decision to put this blatantly inaccurate statement in our report...
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/apr/26/roberts-folo-hed-herpppppp/?partner=popular#comments
"However, on Thursday, task force leader Larry Steenberg said Page 13 always had been a part of the original report, which was delivered to Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke on April 20."
This is a textbook example of a half-truth. Yes, that line was always in the report given to Mayor Winnecke on April 20th. But here's the problem, nothing in page 13 was ever presented to Larry either on, before, or after the day our task force presented our final findings.
The day our task force held its final meeting, each subcommittee gave Larry a report. The intent was for him to simply combine the three reports into a final report so that Mayor Winnecke could look at each of the proposals and weigh the positives and negatives of each proposal against the others.
Through my subcommittee leader, we were told that the final meeting was simply to produce our findings not "debate" them. That was how the meeting was handled and there was never any period of time during that meeting for which any of the members took a vote, a show of hands, or anything else on any of the statements produced in page 13.
Then, on April 1st when the report was due, Larry, and only Larry, requested an extension until April 20th. I, like many other task force members, did not understand this request as the only reason given to us was that the report needed to be more thorough. Well, if that was the case, why were none of the members outside of Larry and the three subcommittee leaders asked to clarify anything?
Apparently, during those three weeks, those four members of the task force went and put cost estimates with each idea. I have talked to Mr. Bill Nix about his findings, I find them to be 100% in good faith, and I stand behind the work Mr. Bill Nix and Jeff Justice did with their cost estimates.
However, after this three week period, Larry sent us an email on April 19th, the day before the report was supposedly given to Mayor Winnecke. In the email, Larry DIDN'T EVEN GIVE US THE REPORT. He told us to contact our subcommittee leaders. Since Mr. Jeff Justice was out of town, I tracked down Mr. Bill Nix who sent me the report on April 20th. That is the first time I saw Page 13.
Not only did I never receive the final report, which I guess was Larry's "original report," until the day it was turned into Mayor Winnecke, I also never had the opportunity to question any of the findings. This came as no surprise to me as I had previously emailed Larry about clarifying the competition constraint given to us and never got a full explanation outside of a rough guess by Larry himself.
So, this "original report" may have had Page 13 in it from the start (we'll never know), but this "original report" DOES NOT contain ONLY the original material given to Larry at our final meeting which was the last public session for findings to be presented and was the last time any of this was discussed as a group. Therefore, the statements on Page 13 were never discussed as a general conclusion in public or private among the task force general body, were never voted upon as a general conclusion, and were certainly never agreed upon as a final conclusion at any time.
"There's nothing really substantive, and it certainly was not added late," Steenberg said, of Page 13 in the report. "The page of the report in question has been made available to the entire subcommittee, and nobody has said a word about that page."
Nothing substantive? The page claims that it was a general conclusion from the task force that it would be cheaper to rebuild than to renovate. That is absurd and is completely inaccurate for repurposing Roberts as a mid-sized arena!
Wasn't added late? The task force got an email, not the report, the day before it was given to the mayor. If that's not late, what is late? By the time Larry decided to send the report out himself it had already been given to the mayor (supposedly). That's not too late?
Task force subcommittee leader Luke Yaeger agreed with Steenberg that Page 13 was not a late addition, nor were the costs associated designed to make one project seem stronger than the other.
"I think we were making some common assumptions and putting some ranges in there," Yaeger said. "But I don't think we were saying one project was more viable than the other."
These quotes shed an enormous amount of light on the situation...
1. The costs themselves may have not been designed to make one idea look stronger than the other. Like I said, I fully trust the work of Bill Nix and Jeff Justice. But I think that's the problem right there: The renovation to Roberts was a fraction of the price the green space proposal was. That should be allowed to speak for itself without an inaccurate page 13.
2. Who is "we" that made some common assumptions? It certainly wasn't me or the rest of the general members of the task force. Those assumptions were anything but common (or accurate) and the words of Luke Yeager and Larry Steenberg should not have been allowed to have been placed in the report that represents the entire task force.
3. And how does making the "common assumption" that it is cheaper to rebuild Roberts Stadium than to renovate it not push the public towards the green space side? Page 13 is basically nothing but green space talking points. In fact, when I originally read the report I thought it was part of their subcommittee report.
Steenberg also said the $14 million price tag for the large park idea only was a broad estimate.
"It's the only estimate we have now, and it will be refined as we proceed down the path of building a park," he said.
Why is Larry Steenberg trying to walk back the cost estimate for the green space? I never questioned that estimate. Larry needs to quit wasting time on trying to refine the cost estimate for the park and start answering questions about the inaccuracies of Page 13. He can start by trying to explain how he thinks a mid-sized arena can be built for less than $4.5 million.
Also, when was it ever decided that we would be proceeding down the path of building a park? Does Larry know even more about the situation than he's telling us? Why would we proceed down a path that is estimated to cost $12 million to $14 million?
Before today's C&P article, I was under the impression that Page 13 was a simple and honest mistake that needed to be removed because it was nothing more than an inaccuracy that didn't belong in the report. But after reading the quotes of Larry Steenberg and Luke Yeager who seem to have no problem with the blatant inaccuracies in Page 13, I have now changed my mind about how Page 13 got in this report.
Many people have suggested that it would be wise for me to go with the flow and not question things like this. But the truth is, I, as well as anyone else, would be doing a huge disservice to Mayor Winnecke, Roberts Stadium, and the city of Evansville by not taking a stand on issues like this one.
If I sit back and allow a select few members to put blatant inaccuracies in this report, it will look bad for Mayor Winnecke to have both an inaccurate report to base his decision on as well as a report that wasn't assembled honestly. I owe it to Mayor Winnecke, and the city of Evansville, to make sure that we do the right thing in renovating Roberts Stadium as a mid-sized arena.
The lost SMG jobs, the lost economic boost from the surrounding restaurants, Evansville's fiscal solvency, as well as Evansville's pride are all going to be affected by this decision. I want Mayor Winnecke to know the truth about Roberts Stadium. I want him to know the following...
1. Renovating Roberts Stadium brings back most, if not all, of the lost SMG jobs.
2. Renovating Roberts Stadium brings back the economic engine for the surrounding restaurants and retail.
3. Renovating Roberts Stadium is a small tiny fraction of the price of building a new mid-sized arena which was never an option to begin with.
4. Roberts Stadium helps, not hurts, the Ford Center with its mid-sized events. That is why both SMG and Venuworks would be interested in running the facility.
5. Roberts Stadium generates revenue, a green space does not.
6. Roberts Stadium is roughly 1/3rd the price of the green space proposal and roughly 1/2 the price of the green space proposal WITH A GREEN SPACE.
7. Roberts Stadium gives us events we don't already have, a green space provides something we already have.
8. Roberts Stadium has many intangible benefits to it such as a disaster relief area, a shuttle stop for the Ford Center, and an indoor Greenway Trail Hub.
9. All of the cities around us that are growing have both a premier and a mid-sized arena(s).
10. Renovating Roberts Stadium has been vastly more popular than a green space at all of the task force meetings.
Mayor Winnecke deserves to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Roberts Stadium as well as the idea of placing the ball fields project at Kleymeyer Park. With Page 13 in this report, Mayor Winnecke will not be given a report that gives him an accurate or correct interpretation of the Roberts Stadium situation.
Mayor Winnecke, please omit Page 13 from the report given to you. This page is misleading, inaccurate, and absurd. It's time for you to turn the page...
No comments:
Post a Comment