Today, in the post "How Can Lloyd Winnecke Sell Roberts Stadium To The Public?" I received some comments and concerns from Brad. The following is what Brad wrote...
**********************************************************************************
Read the article and disagree on fundamental points... The government does not create anything, therefore it does not "create" jobs. It has to tax people to pay for whatever jobs it "creates". So the argument about SMG people losing jobs or park maintenance only getting minimum wage is a void argument. Those jobs could and should be given over to the private sector by selling Roberts Stadium and letting a company try to either make it profitable or make the land useful in some other way. I trust the private sector far more than the decision making skills of politicians, who NEVER appropriate public funds with as much care and attention as a private business would. But, I'm just a fiscal conservative who still believes in a free market economy, what the hell do I know?
Furthermore, the equation of Roberts Stadium to the Washington Monument is preposterous.
Why should the taxpayers of this county pump any more money into this facility? The economy is in such as state, we will be lucky to fill the other stadiums on the books with acts, let alone continue to perform maintenance on Roberts as well...
You talk about "taxpayer investment," but that is not a "conservative" phrase at all. Taxes should never be seen or treated as a vehicle for "investment". Only private citizens make "investments".Public institutions tax the people to keep infrastructure upon which an economy can function. It should NEVER be in "business" or make "investments".
The only real CONSERVATIVE, FREE MARKET solution to the problem of Roberts Stadium is to sell the damned thing off to someone in the private sector who can make use of it. Get it off the city's books and out of the taxpayers' hair! Government should never be trusted to handle "investments". They will only create crony deals that enrich the few at the expense of the many through taxes and bad projects that create nothing.
**********************************************************************************
First of all, I want to thank Brad for coming to the blog, reading the posts, and participating in the debate about Roberts Stadium. Since I have begun this blog, I have never figured out how to get the comments section to work properly on here, so I will be responding via posts. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to email me at JordanBaer1@gmail.com.
The following is my response to Brad's comments and concerns...
(Note: I have bolded the quotes from Brad)
Brad,
Thanks for the post and my responses to the various different issues you have raised are as follows...
"The government does not create anything, therefore it does not "create" jobs"
The government created the Ford Center and it has created jobs although not as many as we need. Yes a private company could have done this and I would have supported them if they would have, but no private company stepped forward so are we to ignore the economic benefits of the Ford Center until we get lucky enough to find someone who wants to build a private arena?
"It has to tax people to pay for whatever jobs it "creates"."
Initially, yes this is what happens most of the time, but the fact that Roberts Stadium has been profitable and can continue to be profitable is proof that this facility is worth the investment especially since there is no economic impact report for the revenue generated by the surrounding neighborhood. Not to mention, Roberts Stadium is paid off, why waste an asset like Roberts Stadium to take on yet another liability (the park) when we can make Roberts Stadium productive as a mid-sized arena?
"So the argument about SMG people losing jobs or park maintenance only getting minimum wage is a void argument. Those jobs could and should be given over to the private sector by selling Roberts Stadium and letting a company try to either make it profitable or make the land useful in some other way."
If there were a private industry interested in buying, not just renting, the facility I wouldn't have a problem with that but as of right now the city has not found one and we have currently lost the SMG jobs. Therefore, we have two options...
1. Take taxpayer funds and demolish it, receive nothing in return, and set up a park that makes no money and wastes Parks Dept funds every year.
2. Use the existing funds earmarked for demolition and sell some of the seats. Do the renovation and then lease it and rent it to the investor that I have rounded up (Chip Rosetti) as well as others who we can pull in such as USI and traveling tournaments. This will bring back and create the jobs lost by SMG which will be lost for good if we demolish this facility. We can outsource this to SMG or set up a 501(c)3 non-profit organization.
"I trust the private sector far more than the decision making skills of politicians, who NEVER appropriate public funds with as much care and attention as a private business would. But, I'm just a fiscal conservative who still believes in a free market economy, what the hell do I know?"
Truthfully Brad, I don't trust either. For every Chicago government there is an Enron and for every World Com there are backdoor deals being made in our Civic Center. Therefore, I don't take a conservative or liberal approach. I handle each situation individually. In this case, there is clear evidence that bringing back SMG or setting up a non-profit organization would work. And if it doesn't, we can still demolish the building down the road so why not give it a try?
"Furthermore, the equation of Roberts Stadium to the Washington Monument is preposterous."
Although tourists do not come to this building specifically for Hank Roberts, it is still nonetheless a monument to Hank Roberts and we owe it to him to maintain this monument.
"Why should the taxpayers of this county pump any more money into this facility? The economy is in such as state, we will be lucky to fill the other stadiums on the books with acts, let alone continue to perform maintenance on Roberts as well..."
This is the most important part of what I'm trying to convey with my blog. We will be using funds ALREADY earmarked for demolition (which you and I know is going to cost more than $200,000) to raise the floor and will then be bringing in hopefully the vast majority of the 11 tenants I have proposed. These tenants will offset the maintenance as they will be responsible for some/most of it, and it will be significantly reduced because THE PUMPS WILL BE GONE. Eliminating the pumps is the major goal of renovating Roberts Stadium. We can also sell naming rights to allow the building to pay for itself.
On the flip side, why should taxpayers fund demolition, fund construction of something else (probably a park) and then fund maintenance of this project which will stand zero chance of profiting? If you're worried about finances, shouldn't you be worried about a new park taking away money from the Parks Dept that is already strapped? Read the following post...
http://saverobertsstadium.blogspot.com/2011/11/i-call-to-stand-evansville-parks.html
"You talk about "taxpayer investment," but that is not a "conservative" phrase at all. Taxes should never be seen or treated as a vehicle for "investment". Only private citizens make "investments".Public institutions tax the people to keep infrastructure upon which an economy can function. It should NEVER be in "business" or make "investments"."
No matter how you view it, the fact is, is that we have placed millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars on Roberts Stadium. To demolish this venue will clearly be wasting these dollars as saving Roberts Stadium will maintain the venue we placed the money on which will do what it is suppose to do- recruit tourists, promote sports businesses (such as USI and the Evansville Rage), and improve the area around it (which it has). I would like to believe that the government sees the money I give them as an investment in the city of Evansville, not as funds that can be invested in a stadium one day and then demolished the next. What taxpayer wants to waste their dollars already spent on Roberts Stadium when we can preserve this venue and keep it solvent?
And if you believe the government is responsible for infrastructure and social services, why not use Roberts Stadium as an indoor Greenway on non-event days? Why not use Roberts Stadium for EVSC basketball tournaments? Why not use Roberts Stadium's parking lot as a shuttle stop for those going to the Ford Center? Why not use it as a disaster relief area? There are way too many intangibles from Roberts Stadium that our city will lose out on if we demolish it.
"The only real CONSERVATIVE, FREE MARKET solution to the problem of Roberts Stadium is to sell the damned thing off to someone in the private sector who can make use of it. Get it off the city's books and out of the taxpayers' hair! Government should never be trusted to handle "investments". They will only create crony deals that enrich the few at the expense of the many through taxes and bad projects that create nothing. "
You are correct about the cronyism but I'm still not sure who would buy the facility. If no one buys the facility, which is what we are facing, this point is moot. Like I said, I'm neither conservative nor liberal but I firmly believe in Roberts Stadium. If you can find a private investor who wants to buy the facility and maintain it-good, but if you can't and we set up a non-profit entity or outsource the building to SMG- that is just as fine with me as well. Because either way, it just makes sense to SAVE ROBERTS STADIUM!
Thank you Brad for your comments!
We are certainly in agreement about not spending the money to tear the facility down, but where we fundamentally differ is in the assertion that the only other solution is to spend more tax dollars on the facility to continue to run it on the government books.
ReplyDeleteEven if the facility was sold at the ultra-low cost of $1 onto the free market, the city and taxpayers would already find themselves WAY ahead of any other measure that seeks to pump more money into the facility. Furthermore, any free market solution is going to employ people as well as generate tax revenue. The difference is, the politicians will not be in charge of directing the activities...which is a GOOD thing! So it might actually be both profitable and successful.
Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman would remind you that there are only four basic ways to spend money. The worst way in terms of productivity is to allow someone to spend someone else's money on still a third party. This is the only type of spending government can do, and therefore, their spending inevitably is misdirected, wasteful, and unproductive when compared to a for-profit business operating in a free market.
Again, we see eye to eye on rejecting the demolition option, but we disagree fundamentally on the faith we have in a free market solution.
Ironically, most of you research and figures could be used to help attract potential buyers at auction.
Brad,
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are no potential buyers for Roberts Stadium, both options do involve taking our government leaders out of the equation. The two options are the following...
1. Outsource to SMG- This lets the private sector run and share in the profits of Roberts Stadium
2. Form a non-profit- This is what we did with the Coliseum, Courthouse, and Jail with the "Conrad Baker Foundation." This option would leave it up to an organization that answers to the government but is not run by the government.
So yea, either way, we will have the private sector in charge. The only difference is financing the renovation which I've proposed selling the seats and using the money already allocated for demolition to do. Maintenance will then be turned over to the private or non profit sector.
- Jordan Baer