Event Center

“build (a new) events center right the first time.”

Another great letter (response) about the Event’s Center.

I wholeheartedly agree with John Mimmack’s call to “Build events center ‘right the first time,’ ” as his My Voice column in the Oct. 15 Argus Leader was headlined. Mimmack needs to pursue due diligence, however, if he wishes to insinuate that I support a downtown site for the events center out of personal gain.

Public records will show that I own no property in Sioux Falls, let alone downtown. I believe I sufficiently addressed the most salient reasons why an events center should not be built next to the Sioux Falls Convention Center in my Oct. 8 My Voice column. As an urban planner, I cannot in good conscience support a proposal that falls short in terms of fiscal sustainability and community enrichment.

A cost-benefit analysis would show that a downtown events center would be the most financially viable location, especially when considering the current economic malaise. If critics of a downtown site wish to debate the issue, they need to use facts to support their case rather than conjecture.

Furthermore, it’s become all too cliché to claim that anyone who supports a downtown events center has something to personally gain from it. Like Mimmack, I prefer Sioux Falls “build (a new) events center right the first time.”

That’s what bothers me the most about the EC arena location supporters. They seem to think that if you don’t support their flawed decision to build the EC by the Arena, they think you don’t support an EC at all. Not the case, I think we should build an Events Center, I just think the location and funding is extremely flawed and there is still time to fix it, we haven’t even voted on it yet. Joe is right, do it right the first time.

Event Center Task Force has their final, final (but not quite final) meeting

blind_leading_the_blind

Official photo of the SF Event Center Task Force

Okay, the EC task force met again to finalize their doomed plans that they hope to present to the public November 16 at a SF city council informational meeting. They plan to meet one more time before explaining their funding plans to regional legislators at a October 29, public meeting at the Orpheum (10 AM).

I’m not going to go into a bunch of crap like I did after the last meeting I attended, but I will point out some finer points, because it seems this beast is still a work in progress. I’ll have to give props to Jim Woster today though, he is good getting the members to cooperate and move on and did a fine job of it today.

The meeting started with the Howard Wood plans if they move and build a new stadium; $32 million. But the architects said this was a ‘Conceptual Estimate’ not a ‘Cost Estimate’. Which means it came directly from their assholes. One task force member asked why the plans were not drawn up to include the track inside the stadium instead of outside of it, and they replied, “Because no one asked us to.” Does someone have to instruct you to wipe your ass after taking a shit to?

The TF is still pushing for the Arena site and consultant Bob Winkels pointed out that in almost every survey taken, the public did not support the downtown location – but it gets better;

Councilor Costello basically says that it doesn’t matter what the public thinks, the TF was formed to make a recommendation (not listen to what the public wants – paraphrasing).

That was very revealing, not only about the TF but what kind of mayor Pat would make. Scary shit. Pat sat in the middle of the room and tried to basically run the meeting, and was pretty successful at rounding up the sheeple, or at least shutting them up.

They will be presenting two concepts to the council

• Building a 15,000 seat shell EC with 12,000 seats or

• Building a 15,000 seat shell EC with 15,000 seats.

Either way, too freaking big.

They still want to build it with a retail tax increase, in fact Costello said it was “The only way to go.” Yet the TF could not decide how much that increase would be, and there was a pissing match about food taxes and rebates. I think I said loudly under my breath, “Their is a solution, DON’T TAX FOOD!”

But towards the end of the meeting there was an intriguing convo about parking and moving HW. The TF (unknowingly) came to the conclusion that it would be cheaper to build a parking ramp then moving and building a new HW. A savings of like $10 million. And if you factor in flat surface parking north of Russell avenue you could save probably $15 million. But the savings don’t end there. Russell, West and Western are getting reconstructed in 3 years and it could free up even more space for parking, possibly saving us even more. In other words, moving HW is a stupid idea. Even Winkels chimed in and said it costs quite a bit to demolish HW and that has to be factored in. The TF decided to leave the moving of HW ‘open’. I got the feeling that there is some internal conflicts on building a new HW. I have felt all along that some members only want to move it so they get a new stadium, it has nothing to do with parking. My guess is after the actual cost estimates come in, HW will stay.

Bob the Barber also brought up the fact that Sanford hasn’t committed the land to the SF school district yet. Well I guess that is a pretty big f’ing component, huh?

It seems to me that the TF’s recommendations really are not much of anything. They have a funding source that may may fail the legislature, and certainly will fail with voters. They picked the wrong location. They can’t agree on parking, they have no tenants and they want to build too big of a facility.

Grab me a hammer so I can finish sealing this coffin.

ON a side note, I showed up late to the meeting and got sandwiched between councilor Kenny Anderson Jr. and mayoral candidate Mike Huether. It made for interesting whisper conversations.

Sioux Falls Event Center paid consultant supports ‘Quality of Life’ projects, gee I wonder why?

Well, gotta hand it to Bob Winkels, he did a nice job of not mentioning the Event Center or that he is getting paid by the city to consult on the new facility. But what is more surprising is that the Gargoyle Leader printed the letter to begin with, oh the hypocrisy;

Soon we will be asked to support other new and expanded facilities that will help to keep Sioux Falls competitive in our Midwestern market. These improvements will help to retain our young citizens and to continue to lure and retain businesses that create jobs.

What New and expanded facilities? An Event Center? Why not just say it Bob, or are you afraid the City would put a stop payment on their checks to you. City officials, leaders and consultants wonder why we don’t trust them, maybe it has to do with how they mislead the public about projects.

And another city official puts his two-cents in, without mentioning the EC either.

There are quality-of-life issues out there that might not be for you but that address the needs of the next generation.

What issue, Jeff? The Event Center? He must be worried about his paycheck to.

LEAVE IT TO KOCH HAZARD TO DESIGN ANOTHER WHITE ELEPHANT

Untitled-1

Here we go again, designing a facility that is too extravagant for Sioux Falls, and not having a way to pay for it. I think Kate Parker’s unemotional Spock stare says it all;

School board members say they don’t need a new Howard Wood, but they’ll be happy to build it to make room for a new city events center – as long as someone else pays for the upgrade.

And who is gonna pay for it? Mickey F’ing Mouse? Get a clue.

I also found this letter to the editor informative. I think Joe sat on one of the original Event Center taskforces? I have met Joe on a couple of occasions, he is very bright and intuitive, and considering he an urban planner, he just might know what he is talking about;

The events center task force deserves praise for having dedicated countless hours to public meetings and fostering a transparent process. But its current proposal – a new facility to be located adjacent to the Sioux Falls Convention Center – falls short as an economically sustainable venture, as experts recently have illustrated. Thus, it is imperative for the task force to rethink its proposal.

The proposal does not maximize the potential for economic development, which is the most significant criterion. Furthermore, the task force has assumed the proposed location can leverage the current Sioux Falls Arena and the convention space. This assumption is over-emphasized and problematic because it disregards current trends in the convention center industry.

There is a glut of convention floor space across the nation, which makes for cutthroat competition among cities trying to attract conventions. “Cities can no longer just build convention center space and expect to get their fair share of demand,” according to Hans Detlefsen, an industry expert. “There is not enough business to go around.”

Joe, I suggest you will have more luck banging your head against the wall instead of trying to convince the task force otherwise. It is no secret that Terri Ellis Schmidt (Head of CVB) has them in a chokehold and she is running the show.

Some Other Problems With The Current Proposal Are:

• Using a new events center for conventions thwarts efforts to attract concerts, as Omaha experienced.

• It is unwise to have multiple facilities at one location because simultaneous events will proliferate traffic congestion.

•  The convention center site significantly diminishes opportunities for patrons to bike, walk or take public transit to events. Furthermore, traffic studies indicate downtown as a suitable site.

You only list THREE PROBLEMS!? I could fill a newspaper.

If the task force cannot take the long view on this issue, then it would be better not to build a new events center rather than make a 50-year mistake.

That’s gotta burn.

The Gargoyle Leader and their Walmartlike SF Next logo make some more ‘Pie in the Sky’ suggestions for Sux Falls

PieintheSky

How many of these three projects have an actual economic impact on the city? Just one, the Event Center. Of course the Gargoyle would like you to think these projects are wanted by a ‘majority’ of the citizens, but between you and me, we both know that this what the Ed Board is pushing for, so they want your opinion on the projects. Kay, I’ll give you mine;

More Hockey Rinks

Proposal: In 2008, the Sioux Falls Youth Hockey Association suggested a new ice rink near Benson Road and Westport Avenue.

Sure. Build the facility, privately. If the rink will benefit the association, then raise the money, build it and run it yourself. Voters have already rejected a public facility, move on already.

Indoor Swimming Pool

Proposal: In 2007, the city proposed an indoor pool at Nelson Park. Opponents took the issue to a vote, and an outdoor waterpark was built on the site. A couple of years before that, voters rejected a proposal for a recreation center, which also included an indoor pool.

Get over it already. How many damn sour grapes are we gonna have to hear about on this pool issue? The voters rejected it, just like the hockey rink. We have over seven privately owned indoor pools in Sioux Falls already you can swim at, why do we want to compete with them? And secondly, why can’t we build an indoor pool attached to a HS that the public can use? Wouldn’t a partnership with the School District make the most sense? Wouldn’t we get the most use out of a facility like that?

Events Center

Proposal: A sports and entertainment complex.

Yes, we probably do need a new EC, 5-7 years down the road. Build it downtown and upgrade Howard Wood at its current location. Do it with a bed and booze tax. Not only would we save millions we would have a EC in a place perfect for entertainment development.