Candidate Conor Much Different Than Councilman Conor

It is no secret that Roberts Stadium was always held to a standard by demolition supporters that they themselves always refused to be held up to. We were always told that Roberts Stadium was a drain on existing dilapidated parks, that it was wasting city funds, and that it would continue to be nothing but a liability to the city.

The problem is, is that all of that was a lie. Roberts Stadium MADE money, it would have continued to have made money albeit smaller amounts, and it would have brought in tourists who would have helped finance the city's parks via their tourist tax dollars. But now, now we are stuck with a "park" and this isn't just a park- it's a drain on city finances, it's taking away federal grants that could be used on existing parks, and it has ZERO chances of ever bringing in revenue, much less being profitable.

Back in 2011, when we were filled with candidates giving us their best pitches on what to do with Roberts, we were given the following from current City Council Member At-Large Representative Conor O'Daniel...

 http://rememberrobertsstadium.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-were-they-thinking.html

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

Yep, that's right mothballing Roberts was taking away money from our parks. First of all, Roberts was NOT costing $400,000 a year to mothball...

http://city-countyobserver.com/2012/10/21/roberts-stadium-electric-bills-obtained-through-freedom-of-information-act-request/

And unlike Councilman O'Daniel who voted for the 2013 budget, Stephanie Brinkerhoff Riley voted against it for this very reason...

http://city-countyobserver.com/2012/10/23/why-i-voted-against-the-2013-city-budget-by-councilwoman-stephanie-brinkerhoff-riley/

"The budget contains nearly $1 million dollars for the destruction of Roberts Stadium. Three years ago, Roberts Stadium was a profitable venue for the City. However, it was systematically attacked and the public misled as to its condition. A refusal to maintenance the building, a financing agreement for the Ford Center that required the removal of all of its seating, and an auction that sold the fixtures for pennies on the dollar has forced the destruction of a landmark in this community. City Council was misled at its last meeting as to the cost to mothball the building. We were told that it was $25 to $30 thousand dollars a month to maintain the building. The records revealed otherwise. In its most expensive month last year (January), water, telephone, pump monitoring, gas and electric was approximately $14 thousand. An average cost to mothball the stadium would be approximately $10 thousand a month. We are destroying a perfectly good building, that is paid for, due to a complete lack of creativity."

Secondly, if O'Daniel believed that mothballing Roberts was a drain on city parks, why didn't he support using $4-4.5 million on refurbishing Roberts into a mid-sized arena using Innkeepers Tax revenue in favor of the current park plan which is estimated to cost $5-10 million from the city budget that could be used on these same parks?

In other words, how can anyone who took next to no time looking into Roberts Stadium claim it's hurting the parks in any way shape or form when he voted for a budget that paid for demolition of Roberts leaving the current park plan the only option?

This past week, Councilman O'Daniel added another layer to this double standard pie...

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jul/02/xcp/?partner=popular

City Council members said funding will be an important factor as they weigh the Roberts Park proposal. Councilman Conor O’Daniel, D-At-large, said he supports having a recreation area at the Roberts location, although he also likes the idea of allowing the area to develop more naturally.

Much of the city’s riverboat and special project funds are already committed, and “there’s some concern we may have overcommitted ourselves this year,” O’Daniel said. “The other part of it is, we need a clean bill of health from the State Board of Accounts ... Those are the considerations we have to make in thinking about at what pace we roll this out.”

Despite the fact that the current situation with our existing parks is nothing short of pathetic, and despite the fact that Mr O'Daniel himself has admitted that city funds are tapped out, he has not called for pulling the plug on the project. Now, we get the "let's think about what pace we roll this out" speech. In other words, expect this park to be a pain in the city budget's rear for quite some time.

The answer to this problem, like it always has been, is very simple. It is nothing short of blatant hypocrisy for the City Council to give this mayor one single dime for a park that will NEVER stand a chance of making money. Roberts Stadium was never allowed to serve as a mid-sized arena which would have kept it solvent, it was never allowed to use Innkeeper's Tax funds which would have been half the cost of this boondoggle park and would have left the city budget alone, and it was never allowed to put heads in beds.

Therefore, this council should not allow a money losing, generic, and unneeded park that will indeed drain resources from existing parks to be constructed with city budget dollars.

There is no need to be a prisoner of the moment, developing this land immediately is irresponsible and unnecessary. But then again, will Councilman Conor hold Roberts Park up to the same standards as Candidate Conor did Roberts Stadium?