From an email exchange I have been having with a member of City Council over the witholding of the Sutton-Kennerly report:

He/she: "If the venue was unsafe, Butch Simmons would have shut it down.... Now, to the bottom line--why spend time arguing about the structural report?  Memorial Stadium will be maintained for what it is and the new stadium is being built.  Time to move on."

Me:  "...It's not the report that I am arguing about because it speaks for itself and everyone agrees with it. My arguments are regarding the transparency in, and the trust of, government.... I would have hoped you would see it that way..."

I suppose that because of my well-known allegiance to War Memorial, my stance on the report is coming off as "sour grapes" to some.  I hope that others realize that I am not nearly that shallow.

In my view, the witholding of the WMS assessment is another in a long line credibility and uninvolvement problems that just keep cropping up at City Hall.  Many members of our stain-release treated City Council keep brushing themselves (and us) off in preparation for the next "I didn't know" newspaper quote. 

9:39:34 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

Picking up on Ed Cone's post about the upcoming demise of the NEW Burlington Headquarters, here is what is left of the OLD Burlington Headquarters.

Wilbur Ross had an opinion on the  the building back in August, 03: "What strikes us is: It's a very interesting building and it's of historic significance locally."

Doesn't matter... it's outahere.

7:15:59 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

The Sutton-Kennerly report assessing the condition of War Memorial Stadium back in June '03 identified potential safety issues with the stadium's structure that are just now being addressed.

 "... We believe that the present strength of the stadium is reduced below the original design and the factor of safety of the structure in its present condition may be significantly below building code requirements"

 "... At this time, a major structural repair is required to reduce the risk of creating an unsafe condition."

 "...Although not a structural concern, falling debris from delaminated concrete presents a serious hazard to users of the stadium."

No part of this assement was retracted in the "Phase II" report (dated 2/13/04, the same day that the story hit the N&R, BTW).  To the contrary, "Phase II" codifies the temporary repairs needed for the "safe, short-term operation of the stadium." 

If such a report had been made public regarding a structure in the private sector, that structure would likely be deemed unsafe and hopefully the City would have closed the place down until proper repairs were made.

The Bats were in the middle of their '03 season when the City received the now undisputed structural assessment.  In light of the report, If a patron or employee of the team had been injured by "falling debris from delaminated concrete", the City would undoubtedly be in the middle of another "governmental immunity" lawsuit right now.

The referendum not withstanding, protecting the public should have been reason enough to not wait six months before consulting with Sutton-Kennerly about the repairs that had to be made to make the stadium safe.

To have done otherwise reveals a double standard.

6:26:49 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks