News-Record.com

you can also add the quid pro quo illegal contribution between Action Greensboro and Simkins Political Committee in the fall election.

I'm still asking the same question. Why doesn't the complex make enough profit to maintain itself ? Water won't be the only thing in the hole.

I'm quite unhappy to see these amenities not going downtown. We say that we care about rebuilding a downtown community in Greensboro, but when push comes to shove, the new stuff often goes elsewhere. Over the years, we allowed important assets to be built outside of downtown, and as a result this cost argument will always work in favor of centripetal rather than center-city development. Downtown Greensboro's promise is still unfulfilled, and I fear that it will always be so if this is what passes for our urban vision.

Andy:
You have a point. But do you think the additional downtown costs would be worth the benefit?

Ironhead:
I'm not sure where people got the impression that the coliseum should be making money.
Such facilities almost never make money, just as parks don't make money.
They are considered a cultural and recreational amenity.
Frankly, Brown's goal is to lose as little money as possible.

Allen, it depends how you construe (and hence measure) the benefit. For example, has the downtown ballpark been a boon for the downtown economy? It's hard to say. It hasn't spurred much nearby real-estate development (though it may still do so). I don't know that you see echoes of its benefits along S. Elm St. or in the rest of downtown. And yet I'd say that it's been a very good thing for downtown Greensboro.

It may be odd for an economist to say this, but not everything that matters to a community is about dollars and cents. Not all costs and benefits can be measured as simple first-round effects. I'm not suggesting that we ignore the nuts-and-bolts concerns of operating costs and land prices, but if we allow those concerns to trump other ones, we'll never have the downtown we want. Let's imagine a downtown that has an ACC Hall of Champions, a new swim center, and various other amenities that visionary city leaders would have put there. If we had that vision and stuck to it, a critical mass of development would soon appear, and downtown would be the place to be. That's a vision that would pay off in the long run. But that's a vision we don't have.

Good points. One other problem may be that Matt Brown has a clearer, more passionate vision for the coliseum than city leaders have for downtown.

Allen,

The tax paying citizens of Greensboro must have some idea that it should make money. They vote against maintenance on the place, every time it comes up.

I'm hard-pressed to come up with an arena like the coliseum that makes money. Do you know of one?

ABrod: "Let's imagine a downtown that has an ACC Hall of Champions, a new swim center, and various other amenities that visionary city leaders would have put there."
And to heck with the additional costs to the taxpayers of that visionary city. Spend others money and by all means...waste, waste, waste.
Allen: "Matt Brown has a clearer, more passionate vision for the coliseum than city leaders have for downtown". I can't remember the exact words but there is an old saying something like, "to the victor go the spoils".

If this were a competition, tonywilkins would be right--to the victor goes the spoils. I thought it was about what was good for the city, but perhaps I was wrong.

If I'm not wrong, however, then we should remember that vibrant downtowns pay off in the long run, which means that ignoring this is the more serious waste of taxpayer money. Unfortunately, it's easy to ignore this, and it can often be justified on the basis of short-term cost savings. What's needed is vision and a commitment to stick to it. My fear is that Greensboro has neither, and if that's true, we may well be destined to be a city of parts without a core. That won't be good in the long run, for our economy or our community. But hey, it'll apparently please tonywilkins.