The vote was taken on February 3rd, 2003 by the Greensboro City Council on whether or not to place the baseball stadium referendum on the ballot. The Council voted unanimously to place the issue on the ballot entrusting the voters to make a correct and informed decision based on the merits of the situation.
During this Council session (Word file), many of our representatives expressed outrage over the title of the petition that over 10,000 voter signed, which read, in part: A Petition to Save War Memorial Stadium. Action Greensboro representative Greg Chabon testified before the Council and, "(He) detailed the language contained in the petition and stated he believed it was difficult for citizens to discern what they thought they were signing. He asked that Council reject the petition based on the wording contained thereon." Ed Cone and much of the editorial staff at the N&R weighed in that the voters where being presented with a false choice. Based on the information that had been released at the time, they had a point.
In the campaign that ensued, the folks that were in favor of banning stadia in downtown Greensboro and keeping Minor League Baseball at War Memorial Stadium were lambasted for continuing to say that it was indeed an "either/or" vote to "save" War Memorial or watch it wither. The "naysayers" insisted that if the new stadium were to be built - War Memorial would continue its decline and eventually be demolished. The new stadium forces dismissed the argument as groundless. After all, the City owns WMS and no one is talking about tearing it down - bullcrap (not my first choice of words).
As I found out on Wednesday, and the N&R reports this morning, the City ordered a structural assessment of WMS shortly after the Feb 3, 2003 vote. Undertaken by the well-respected Consulting Engineer firm of Sutton-Kennerly & Associates, the report was presented to the City on June 9, 2003. It says, in part, "The observed deterioration is so widespread that adequate structural repairs may be impractical and cost prohibitive".
Sutton-Kennerly was so sure about its assessment that it stated, "Based on the results of our preliminary examination and our experience evaluating a number of similar types of structures with similar distresses, it is our opinion that a comprehensive condition assessment on the structure is not warranted" By recommending that no further study needed to be done, they cut themselves out of a $30,000 contract... they were very confident in their assessment.
The City's response: bury the report and kill the messenger. Assistant City Manager (and itinerate structural engineer) Mitch Johnson says in today's N&R, “I frankly didn’t think it was very accurate.... I didn’t see any value in communicating that editorial opinion.”
Oh really, well I see lots of value in why the city would choose NOT to communicate the report on the condition of WMS. One of the City's own laws would force repairs if such a historic structure had been so neglected in the private sector: It is called the Ordinance to Prevent Demolition by Neglect.
Also, if the report had been released during the height of the stadium referendum debate it would have created a clear choice to the voters but the City decided to leave it out of the public's decision making process. At least a few of our City Council folks knew about the implications contained in the report but figured they would keep it to themselves. Some decided that the stadium needed further study. The Council Members quoted today were among the most vocal supporters of the new downtown stadium:
Mayor Holliday: “I don’t think that it’s smart to release a preliminary finding that might lead you to an incorrect decision". OK, thanks for leading where it took us Keith. I'm a pretty smart guy, give me all of the information please... I can take the truth.
Councilwoman Florence Gatton: "...wanted the staff to take a harder look before the council was asked to take action." Well now, how come that "harder look" was delayed until after the referendum? Why didn't those of you who knew about the report order the "harder look" on, let's say... June 10th, 2003?
Councilman Robbie Perkins says he didn't see the report, but knew about the stadium's condition and said that's "(o)ld news.... Everyone knew the concrete was in poor condition". Perkins was the main Councilman who accused Bill Burckley and the Petitoner's Committee of misleading the voters. Who misled who?
Councilman Perkins just can't understand what all the fuss is about anyway, he knows of the stadium's future role: "We’re not talking about a stadium that seats 5,000,” Perkins said. “We’re talking about a stadium that will seat 500.” What?????
Who are the we that Councilman Perkins refers to? I have attended every meeting having anything to do with WMS over the last three years and I have not heard plans for a 4500 seat reduction in the stadium's capacity. WE are talking about some things too, the difference is that WE keep everyone informed as things develop because WE are just gullible enough to think that this is how it is supposed to be done.
Why were only some Council Members briefed on the report and not others? Who makes the decision on who should see what? Are there conversations going on at staff level down at City Hall such as, "Let's bounce this off Florence, Keith and Don... I can't see any reason to let Tom and Yvonne in on it... Claudette might not need to be involved... Sandy, well she might not get the implications... T. Diane might leak it". If I were among those Council members that were not privy to such an explosive report on such an explosive issue... I WOULD EXPLODE!
I will try to obtain the new assessment report that that reportedly refutes Sutton-Kennerly initial evaluation today, I'm looking forward to seeing the reversal of fortune for WMS.
7:25:22 AM 
|
