Another Disappointing Article From The Courier & Press

First they came out with a disappointing article against high speed rail, then another in support of demolishing Roberts Stadium, and now they have come out with yet another article calling for the Wesselman Park ball fields to be brought back up in front of the County Council.

Here's the article released today by the C&P:

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/nov/21/the-ball-fields-the-issue-officials-look-at-cost/

Just like when they quoted an I-69 Chamber of Commerce yes man on high speed rail, the Courier & Press has decided to base their opinion off people who have no use for Roberts Stadium, thus they have no plans for it despite the many options there are for reusing the facility and maintaining 54 years worth of valuable history.

First the article says...

Despite the concerns of some residents that this is not a good location for such a facility, sitting so close to Wesselman Woods, it strikes us as a more than suitable location, so near multiple other recreation facilities and with a large piece of property that could be turned into ball fields.

Really? Does the C&P honestly believe that this a much better location than Kleymeyer Park? How can the C&P justify that? With Kleymeyer Park, we would be able to...

- Capture methane gas from the landfill underneath it to reduce emissions and produce AN ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCE for the ball fields
- Work with the EPA to clean up Pigeon Creek (See: http://saverobertsstadium.blogspot.com/2010/11/red-rover-red-rover-please-send-epa-on.html )
- Build Vintage MLB Ball fields like these http://www.bigleaguedreams.com/replica-fields ( which by the way, that organization does it at no taxpayer expense http://www.bigleaguedreams.com/corporate/park-development )in an area that already has a baseball image
- Evansville would be to girl's softball what Omaha is to the College World Series
- Revitalize a dilapidated park that hasn't gotten its fair share of funding ( Kleymeyer is in worse shape than Wesselman Park)
- Revitalize the First Ave, North Main St., and Diamond Ave areas.
- It's one road and the Lloyd Expressway to the eastside (same as Wesselman Park)
- It will bring more visitors to the future downtown hotel
- It is next to basketball courts, a swimming pool, and the greenway while also being in the same complex as Walter's Golf-N-Fun which fits perfectly with this project
- It stood a better chance of getting Recovery Zone Bonds ( Although that doesn't matter anymore)
- It is far away from resident homes

The C&P then makes their editorial worse by stating...

Wesselman Woods would still be buffered from the Roberts Stadium site by the Wesselman Par 3 golf course. That will not change. What would change would be the elimination of acres of paved parking lot and a large, unneeded public building.

An unneeded building? What reason does the C&P have for this belief? I have given 9 uses for this historic (yes I said historic) building on this blog. A study has already shown Evansville could support an indoor water park resort inside Roberts Stadium. City Councilman Dr. Dan Adams has stated that Evansville is also in dire need of a new indoor swimming pool and wants it to be at Roberts Stadium. I agree. Furthermore, we currently have no indoor center for biking, jogging, and walking on our greenway. What good is the greenway when it rains and snows if there's no indoor section attached to it?

The perfect buffer between the woods and the city is Roberts Stadium itself. Replant the back lot with trees, place a botanical garden or indoor waterpark with an indoor greenway inside Roberts Stadium and put a fence between the golf course and Roberts Stadium. The perfect buffer!

In an article last Friday the C&P asked Mayor Weinzapfel, and Mayor Weinzapfel only, about reusing Roberts Stadium (This article is cited in the C&P opinion as well).

Here's the article: http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/nov/19/city-council-members-call-halt-ball-fields-project/

Weinzapfel said he has listened to many suggestions for the reuse of Roberts, but only will take them seriously if they come with financing plans. So far, no one he knows of has devised a practical means of paying for the continued operation of the stadium, he said.

In the circumstances, demolition is the best option, he said.

The mayor is the ONLY person the C&P interviewed for that article. The only studies this city administration has done on Roberts Stadium (besides the indoor water park study that appears to have been discarded) are studies that focus solely on using Roberts Stadium as a renovated arena which I address here: http://saverobertsstadium.blogspot.com/2010/11/rumors-of-roberts-stadiums-demise-has.html.

I have a group willing to study proper reuses for Roberts Stadium for a mere $32,500 ( in contrast Roberts' demolition cost has gone from $1.25 million to $1.5 million). I have presented this group as well as my ideas to the mayor upon which he has not gotten back to me on. Why does the C&P think ignoring this study and not researching these ideas before supporting demolition is the proper way to go?

This begs the question: How can the C&P and the mayor state that Roberts Stadium is an unneeded building and must be demolished when they have studied, researched, or tried to implement ZERO reuse alternatives other than a renovated arena and ignored a water park resort study?

I have great respect for the C&P. I have started a group Tri-State Tomorrow in an effort to "lift the pal," from Evansville. This group was put together after being inspired by a C&P article.

However, I really believe they need to change their editorial opinion process. They need to interview and consider both sides, and I believe they should use the power they have to put together a citizen's panel and host a town hall meeting(s) to gather ideas on what to do with Roberts Stadium. That would be an editorial opinion I could get behind!