From the beginning, we have heard opponents of saving Roberts Stadium cite the costs of keeping it up or converting it to another use as reason to demolish it. They believe that Roberts Stadium will become a burden to taxpayers and are unwilling to spend an extra penny on anything related to Roberts Stadium.
One thing that we haven't heard from those who want to demolish Roberts Stadium is a plan that will spare taxpayers from having to pay out several million dollars.
First we had the ball fields plan from the ECVB. This plan was terrible from the word go. The fields were an amazing $17.5 million and would have locked up the Innkeepers tax for 25 years. Even with that hefty price tag, they were dull and uninspiring. It didn't take long for many residents to oppose this plan with their main objection being price.
But now those who want Roberts Stadium demolished have insisted that Roberts Stadium is too much to maintain or renovate even though zero reuse proposals have been released to the public and it is just assumed that Roberts Stadium would have to be mothballed.
Initial estimates to mothball Roberts Stadium have varied from $280,000, to $300,000, and all the way up to $400,000. The truth is, no one really knows the cost of a mothballed Roberts Stadium as they are just using this figure as an excuse to tear it down. They refuse to use even an ounce of energy on researching how much the maintenance would be to maintain it in various refuse forms, and they absolutely have not approached a public-private partnership to lease the building in exchange for the tenant financing the maintenance.
For the record, I have been approached by an investor who is willing to manage Roberts Stadium and give up a small percentage of a few teams he has in exchange for the right to use Roberts Stadium. All we have to do is finance the raising of the floor with initial estimates coming in far less than the $1-$2 million demolition fee and it would allow for the city to be able to turn off the water pumps knocking off a good chunk of the maintenance expenses. So even if Roberts Stadium is just mothballed, the finger should be pointed directly at city hall.
It is this SAME stubbornness of Roberts Stadium opponents that has caused them to fail to draw up a proper reuse plan for the lot. Why haven't they drawn up a plan? Simply put, it's easier to attack the Roberts Stadium maintenance costs than to come up with a plan that will avoid high maintenance costs and require zero taxpayer dollars themselves.
We already know that taxpayers will be on the hook for a $1-$2 million bill should Roberts Stadium be demolished although it has yet to be determined whether that bill would be stuck on property taxpayers, Casino Aztar patrons, or tourists who just want to spend a night in an Evansville hotel.
What we haven't heard is a plan to reuse the Roberts Stadium lot that will not need public funding. Like I said earlier, the ball fields plan had such high maintenance and construction costs that it was rejected by the majority of Evansville residents. Now, most Roberts Stadium opponents say they want a park, maybe with a lake, maybe with some trails going through it.
What amazes me about those who feel that way is that I truly believe that they expect a park the size of Roberts Stadium and it's parking lot to be cheap to build and cheap to maintain if not free.
To anyone who lives within the Evansville metro area, it is common knowledge that our city parks are crumbling at unacceptable rates. In fact, local resident Dr. Troost is leading a campaign to dramatically improve these parks after his daughter found a drug needle in the sand box she was playing in at Sunset Park...
http://city-countyobserver.com/2011/02/02/4857/
Even the Evansville Parks Department has said point blank that they CANNOT take on anymore parks...
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/jun/20/special-report-evansville-parks-department-isnt/
Knowing that, why would anyone believe that adding a park the size of Roberts Stadium and its parking lot is a good idea?
Make no mistake, we can do a park AND Roberts Stadium but it would have to be in the form of a botanical garden where research dollars are available and tourists pay to walk the grounds...
http://saverobertsstadium.blogspot.com/2010/11/roberts-stadium-proposal-8-botanical.html
A botanical garden next to Roberts Stadium would be a great idea as it would make a perfect buffer between the city and the wildlife of Wesselman Park. In fact, Oklahoma City just renovated their Myriad Gardens next to their arena (formerly the Ford Center) where the OKC Thunder play...
http://www.myriadgardens.com/
For those who just want to see something green out there, a botanical garden working in harmony with Roberts Stadium would make much more financial sense than paying to demolish Roberts Stadium and replacing it with a dull, generic park which the Parks Department has already said they don't have the manpower for.
As for any other ideas for demolishing Roberts Stadium, none I have heard of are practical or would be any cheaper than a park, thus they too are more expensive than keeping Roberts Stadium.
Those who oppose the Save Roberts Stadium movement simply because they don't want to spend a single penny on anything need to realize that there is no plan that is free.
Mayor Weinzapfel has said that demolishing Roberts Stadium would make sense financially because paying $1-$2 million to demolish it would pay itself off in 6 years when the city has paid $300,000 a year to mothball it...
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/nov/23/evansville-visitors-bureau-reduces-ball-fields-bud/
What he doesn't tell you is this...
1. If Roberts Stadium is mothballed, it will because city hall itself chose not to reuse/lease the building. Several investors have been expressing interest in it for over 3 years now...
http://www.14wfie.com/story/9552025/will-old-roberts-stadium-stay-or-go?clienttype=printable
2. Demolition may be paid off in 6 years, but that doesn't include maintenance of the site regardless of whatever goes there.
3. Simply raising the floor back up for less than $1 million would eliminate the majority of the $300,000 maintenance expense when the water pumps would be shut off.
4. The Parks Dept. has already admitted they don't have any extra manpower.
5. The only fund mentioned to finance the demolition was the Casino Aztar fund. Wasn't that account only to be used for tourism like the Innkeepers Tax?
With all of that being said, the main thing to realize with Roberts Stadium is that demolition is a zero-sum game. Tearing it down WILL NOT save the taxpayer from having to put up any funds. In fact, demolition would cost the taxpayer a million or two with zero ROI on their money as they would end up with an empty lot.
It's time to quit discussing the demolition of historic Roberts Stadium and start talking about what we would like to do with it. Roberts Stadium will be a wonderful icon for the city of Evansville for years to come!
No comments:
Post a Comment