The misuse of a taxpayer asset in selling the land for the stadium is what grieves me.

Melvin's group retained an appraiser and told him "we want you to value this property as if it were vacant and the highest and best use were for a ballpark"--Melvin's appraisal,Melvin's appraiser.

That value was presented to the city council who didn't even have the decency to get an ouside third opinion of value. A few days after the handshakes, the developers of the proposed Belmeade Village come along and publically offer a few million more for the for the land and the council poo-poos them. Greensboro takes care of its own no outsiders need apply.

IMO, the low ball sale of the land was the city's way of subsidizing the stadium aquisition without a vote going on record with the word "subsidize" appearing in the text.

Next thing to look out for is the stadium group requesting the city condem property adjacent to the park for use as public parking lots.

The Beards ask, "Who said the new stadium was a bad idea?"

That would have been me.

That ballpark is probably the best thing that has come to downtown Greensboro. Where else could I enjoy a baseball game on a Thursday afternoon while drinking a $1 beer and eating a footlong hot dog....

Who said the new stadium was a bad idea?

Well, let's see, yes, there was David Hoggard and ...

Sports economists and urban econommists who've repeatedly researched the overall effect of new downtown stadiums repeatedly determine that new downtown stadiums are a poor choice when local economic development and downtown redevelopment are the actual goals. http://www.stadiumreferendum.homestead.com/EconomicQuotes.html

Richard Florida, brought to visit Greensboro by Action Greensboro to promote his "Creative Class" concept, repeatedly and clearly articulates in print and in conversation that a new downtown stadium is not a good idea. Florida writes ... "Stadiums are NOT part of any package aimed at attracting the creative class. And none of our focus groups or interviews turned up stadiums as on the list of what creative class people want." (Florida's emphasis, not mine.)

41.5% of Greensboro citizens who voted (12,173 of 17,162 voters) felt a new downtown stadium was not the best option. Neither side can presume how the other 205,000 City residents felt about the issue. Any issue that increases voter turnout is worthwhile for citizen engagement.

People who live nearest the new stadium, now barraged by much-too-loud amplified game announcer noise and booming fireworks, continue to feel the new downtown stadium was not a good choice.

Those who supported the Stadium Referendum (against a new downtown stadium) have rational reasons for the position, are strong supporters of both economic development and downtown redevelopment, are the beneficiaries of hundreds of new-found friendships throughout Greensboro thanks to the Stadium Referendum process, and are pleased to have participated in a truly civic process.

"Where else could I enjoy a baseball game on a Thursday afternoon while drinking a $1 beer and eating a footlong hot dog...."

How about at home WITH AIR CONDITIONING!

Ann, What a delightful read. Thank you.

I like the new ballpark.
There is nothing wrong with old women watching those young handsome players in their tight uniforms is there? LOL. ;)

Lily,

Aren't they the same young handsome players and tight uniforms that were at War Memorial Stadium?

I, too, said "the new stadium was a bad idea."

Tater,
You got a beer for a dollar there?? Man, I need to go on Thursdays. Did you have a coupon or something?

:o)

So does this mean that it is so successful that, instead of taking private property owners land, they could have tore down the white elephant on Lee and High Point Road and built the stadium there? It would be kind of nice to see that plot of land making some kind of contribution to the community instead of the giant sucking sound of money continually going down the drain.

Maybe they were, but I didn't live here then, Maddog. :)

David Hoggard has the best documentation of just what this FREE stadium cost,is costing and will continue to cost the taxpayers of this county.Perhaps he'd like to share it one more time ? Along with the plans and costs of rehabbing WWM ? Ann Stringfield reiterated the oft quoted authoratative wisdom of the world's leading urbanists on the economic effacacy of new minor league parks.

This one is about as FREE as the new waterpark in downtown.Besides blowing a cool $750,000.00 from council with no strings attached to the conflict of interest riden entity combining the CC and AG,the latest estimate of the tax payers annual share of maintaining it is over $500,000.00 and rising. This at a time when the city goes begging for funds needed for far more significant issues.AND like the Commissioners feed their demand for pork not leaving enough to service the strategic needs of the community.The Commissioners spread the pork around and came up short so they raided the school bond fund.Leadership with integrity ?

Mr. Perkins do you and the rest of our elected pols who pay homage to the mob who are defacto controllers of our community have any projects that are in fact free gifts that the city needs and can use and that you-all can actually afford without digging into our pockets?I doubt it !

As was pointed out again the rigged appraisal on the ballpark land demonstrated that Melvin's mob gets whatever they want to shove down our throats in their infinite wisdom and we're supposed to take it with no recourse ?

AG blew more on promoting and building the new stadium than it would have taken them to rehab WW Memorial into what would have been this country's finest minor league park to a AA standard and with more than enough parking in a neighborhood that wanted it.They blew millions more.Why ?

Well it didn't make any difference if a non profit owned it or the city ,they had the resources and would have saved the taxpayers a bundle in the long run.

When Jim Bouton exposed the truth it was too late. He explained the phenomenum about how team owners wait a while after a new stadium is built and then sell the team ,even when it is losing money operationally, for a large profit. More often than not the public ends up paying after the owners take their money and run. The stadiums referenced by Ms.Stringfield,have done nothing to rebuild cities decimated by white flight and the sucking sound of retail boxes and NAFTA.

So was the new sadium a good idea? Not a pimple on what could have been done with WWM and the far more effacacious use of AG dollars which instead got spent on a selfserving enterprise for the benefit of a very few and a FREE water park with the economic benefit that we will all end up funding.

If anything can change this status quo it would be to vote in cndidates with integrity,vision and the stregth of their convictions to replace what we have which is the antithesis of leadership for the benefit of our community.

I don't believe that it was absolute opposition to the stadium, but instead, the pursuit of renovating War Memorial, rather than building a new one.

When factoring in the true costs of the new stadium to the taxpayers, how much did that "$1.00 hotdog" really cost?

Sorry about that. I meant to say...

When factoring in the true costs of the new stadium to the taxpayers, how much did that "$1.00 beer" really cost?

Mr. Jorgan,

To set the record straight, the city council did NOT sell the land for the new ballpark -- the county commissioners did since it was county-owned property.

Initially, I wasn't too thrilled with the idea of a new stadium. The folks in the aycock district wanted to keep baseball there, and the folks in fischer park didn't want it there--seemed like a no-brainer to me: renovate war memorial.

now, however, after attending 2 recent games, I'd be lying through my teeth if I didn't admit to LOVING the new park. Concessions are easily reached from any seat in the house (and without having to hold your breath as you pass by the bathrooms); the kids LOVE the playground; the field is immaculate; all-in-all, a great atmosphere and for a real baseball fan it's a little bit of heaven.

The only thing that's buggin me about the stadium now I reckon is the fact that they charged me $5 for a cold one-- what's your secret, Tater? :)

At a cost to taxpayers of over 3/4 of a million dollars when the City of Greensboro is in desperate need of increasing its police force by 100 officers (25% of the force) how could any fool think the money was well spent?

At least with the stadium we have something tangible that our tax money went to.
Can't say the same about the St. James II housing project can we?
Don't diss the ballpark people. Its FUN. Get off your computers and got see what your tax money went for. :)