There Is No Need For An "Option C"

In an interesting twist of events, we are now being challenged by two philosophies instead of just 1. In the City-County Observer today, Richard Poorer published an article calling for a "Option C"....

http://city-countyobserver.com/2011/12/07/is-there-an-%e2%80%9coption-c%e2%80%9d-for-roberts-stadium/

From the article, it is very easy to see which side of the political spectrum Richard is coming from. Since the beginning of this battle to save Roberts Stadium, we have been attacked by the group that Richard labels as "Option A." Let's dive into the three groups and take a look at some of their characteristics...

Option A

- The group that wants to see Roberts Stadium demolished in favor of a park
- Key members are: Most of our city leaders at the Civic Center, The Democratic Central Committee; Residents who aren't passionate about Roberts Stadium
- Contains the liberal philosophy that the government should be fully in charge of the Roberts Stadium debate
- Although they try to argue that money is a key component to their argument, in reality, it isn't as they are willing to use taxpayer dollars to demolish Roberts Stadium, have no estimate for the costs to build a park, and they have no estimate for park maintenance costs. They just want Roberts Stadium demolished.

Option B

-The group that wants to save Roberts Stadium
- Key members: This blog, me (the man who has been labeled by Democratic Central Committee Members as "a one man militia"), Berniece Tirmenstein, Brenda Bergwitz, Sherman Stevens, the vast majority of the neighbors that surround Roberts Stadium, and various Republican and Democrat officials
- Understand the value of Roberts Stadium and are the only group that fully respects the building for what it is, what it has done, and what it can still do for our community.
- Contains both liberal and conservative characteristics but rejects both sides as the solution to Roberts Stadium.
- Money is not the primary goal but it is a strong part of the movement as estimates to raise the floor, fundraising ideas, and revenue generating tenants have all been identified to keep Roberts profitable.

Option C

- The group that doesn't really care if Roberts Stadium is demolished or saved
- Key members: Brad Linzy, Richard Poorer
- Do not look at Roberts Stadium emotionally; are only concerned about the financial aspects of Roberts Stadium
- Contains the conservative philosophy that only the free market and private sector should deal with Roberts Stadium
- Money is the only objective of this group and they want Roberts Stadium sold to the highest bidder.

Now that you have an idea of what each group comes from, you will see why Option C is just as bad as Option A. Neither group respects Roberts Stadium at all. Neither group is concerned about what this venue means to those of us with Option B. The only things these two groups are concerned about are...

1. Their political philosophy
2. Making sure Roberts Stadium doesn't get in the way of their political career (Option A)
3. Making sure Roberts Stadium doesn't take any of their pennies that they have shined many times over (Option C)

The vast majority of the posts on this blog have dealt with Option A as the vast majority of those who oppose our Option B fall in this category. It has brought many pains to those in Option A that their plan just doesn't compete with our plan. Unlike their plan, our plan does not fall for the fallacies of liberalism where taxpayers are left footing the bill for yet another park that won't be maintained, won't mean anything to anyone, and won't stand a chance of turning a profit.

Their plan makes no sense as it wastes taxpayer dollars on demolishing Roberts Stadium, wastes taxpayer dollars on a park, wastes taxpayer dollars maintaining this park, fails to create or preserve the jobs lost at SMG, fails to create economic development, fails to help out the ball fields project which can be a strong stimulus for the Bosse Field area, and it fails to maintain our monument to Hank Roberts.

But now, it appears that Option C, the conservatives, have decided to enter the fray as well. Like Option A, this plan comes with a political fallacy, only this time it's conservatism instead of liberalism. Even worse, their plan doesn't achieve their primary goal which is to spend/use taxpayer dollars wisely. Let's examine how our plan beats their plan in achieving their financial goals and then we will dive into the quotes from the article...

1. Option C complains that the private sector should be involved via the city selling of Roberts Stadium and its property. The problem is, no one has expressed interest in it. Another problem is the fact that the vast majority of residents do not want this land commercialized, therefore, this scares off investors.

With our plan, the private sector is ALREADY INVOLVED. We can do one of two plans. We can either form a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that will run Roberts Stadium like the Conrad Baker Foundation did with the Old Courthouse, Jail, and Coliseum when they were threatened. This would take our government leaders out of the equation once renovations are done. Or, we can bring back SMG to Roberts Stadium and outsource maintenance and scheduling operations to them. Either way, our city leaders will be taken out of the equation.

2. Their plan doesn't make sense financially. By selling Roberts Stadium, we will be getting rid of an asset that we have invested millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars in. These investments should be protected and maintained as a mid-sized venue which will continue to keep Roberts Stadium in the black. We would also be eliminating the idea of selling our seats to help finance the ball fields project. By selling the seats and using the existing funds earmarked for demolition, we will be renovating Roberts Stadium and keeping it as an asset to our city. Option C wants to cut bait with all of our investments which will result in losing the SMG jobs permanently, failing to create and preserve economic development, and failing to maintain our monument to Hank Roberts.

With all of that being said, let's dive into some quotes from the article...

"The fact is, even if the economy was not on the skids, no scheme could be guaranteed to be financially successful. "

There is no such thing as a project without risk. Even if we were to sell Roberts Stadium to a private investor, it would still take on risk. Just look at the McCurdy and Executive Inn for reasons why we shouldn't turn anymore projects over to an investor, nor should we rely on them to obtain financing. The clear solution is to lease the building to SMG who would lease it to teams such as the Evansville Rage, or form a non-profit entity who would lease the building to teams such as the Evansville Rage and the other 10 tenants we need to recruit. If this doesn't work out, we can STILL sell it or demolish it. That's as low risk as it gets.

"Any imagined scenario has a large measure of risk to the taxpayer that their dollars wouldn’t simply be flushed down a perennial black hole of unnecessary spending on something no one will actually use."

That's what will happen if we sell Roberts Stadium to a private investor who will either take advantage of our taxpayer dollars invested into Roberts Stadium over the years, or will put something else out there that no one wants such as a strip mall.

"The authorization of more spending on a Roberts Stadium project for either Option A or B is also taking a risk that cronyism will rear its ugly head, and the job will simply go to he who has the most pull, not the best resume."

No it won't. It would go to a private entity such as SMG or it would go to a non-profit organization. And how do we know that city hall won't sell Roberts Stadium on the cheap to a business who is run by one of their cronies? Does Browning ring a bell?

"The only argument I have yet to hear espoused in any real detail is the free market solution – namely selling the old Stadium along with the land upon which it sits to a private entity in an open auction. This not only solves the problem of demolition cost, but also the political problem of deciding what purpose the property should serve."

This is where the lack of heart towards Roberts Stadium comes into play from those in Option C. Nobody wants the area used for commercial development, and the vast majority of Evansville residents want to keep Roberts Stadium- just drive down Boeke to see this in full effect. We owe it to future generations to maintain what has been given to us, not sell it on the cheap so that a private investor can do whatever they please with it.

We have rounded up an interested party in Chip Rosetti who wants to bring the Evansville Rage, mid-sized concerts, and several others teams into Roberts Stadium. We can also go after organizations such as USI to fill out the rest of the dates. If we were to decide to sell Roberts Stadium, it will take months if not years to sell it to someone as this investor will want their plan approved by the city before they break ground. That's under the assumption there even is an interested investor. Meanwhile, the pumps will still be running and Roberts Stadium will still have to be maintained. Is that what we want to do with our money? No, we need to outsource to SMG or a non-profit entity.

"Even selling the Stadium for $1 is certainly preferable to spending $1.25 million on demolition or $500,000 on raising the floor and god knows how much more turning it into something the public may or may not use."

No, selling the seats that would be removed during renovations to fund the renovation is the correct step as it will be selling taxpayer assets to maintain a taxpayer asset in Roberts Stadium. From there, we will be maintaining Roberts Stadium and even turning a small profit when we fill Roberts Stadium's dates up with rent paying tenants. We have already recruited investors who want to lease Roberts Stadium and will continue to do so once renovations are complete for the simple fact that rent will be affordable due to the water pumps expense being eliminated. That is certainly more profitable to the city than selling for a buck!

"To invoke an example, let’s say I buy a shiny new automobile, let’s say it’s a Ford"

The last thing we need to do is compare Roberts Stadium to a piece of junk automobile. Unlike cars, Roberts Stadium doesn't leave you hung out to dry by breaking down on the freeway, and it certainly doesn't depreciate as quickly as a car. A car is not an investment unless you are buying a stock car and entering it in the latest NASCAR race. Roberts Stadium is an investment. It's an investment in jobs that were created by SMG, it's an investment in economic development for businesses such as Kipplee's, Turoni's, and Western Rib-Eye (not to mention hotels that would be filled for basketball tournaments), and it is an investment in a monument to both Hank Roberts and Ralph Legeman. Just ask those up in New Castle, Indiana what a fieldhouse monument can do for your economy.

"The only solution that will not cost taxpayers a dime is the one that involves selling Roberts Stadium, getting it off the books, and using the revenue generated to either fix something else like the sewers, or give the money back to taxpayers in the form of a tax holiday. It’s the only solution that makes logical sense…Option C."

Absolutely not. The only correct solution to Roberts Stadium is to keep it as is by outsourcing it to SMG or by following in the footsteps of the Conrad Baker Foundation and forming a non-profit organization that feeds its revenue into the city or some other cause. Either way, ROBERTS STADIUM SHOULD NOT FALL IN THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OR PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTORS!

I'm thoroughly confident that the vast majority of Evansville residents are on our side. I'm also thoroughly confident in the abilities of Lloyd Winnecke to make the right decision by rejecting options A and C (In Lloyd we trust!).

Let's do the right thing. Let's raise the floor and SAVE ROBERTS STADIUM!