IS IT TRUE April 26, 2012

1. Let’s start calling Winnecke a magician.
   **Poof be gone*** and there goes your homestead exemption.
   ***Look what I found behind your ear!*** and there is Page 13 of the Roberts Stadium study.

   • I think it’s wrong for you to suggest that Winnecke is a poof.

2. There was never a discussion that I’m aware of regarding the cost of refurbishing versus building new, and there certainly was never a consensus. The majority of these numbers are coming solely from the Chairman who drafted the final report. I have no idea where he got them. I sat on the Green Space Subcommittee, and we did not include any cost estimates in our oral report. Now apparently, it’s millions of dollars per acre? I don’t understand what happened, but the conclusions drawn by the Chairman do not accurately reflect the opinions of the committee members.

   • Thanks for standing up Stephanie. Anyone else out there with backbone and character from the task force?

     • I second that; Thank you Stephanie!! Then again, why would anyone be surprised by the shenanigans of the powers that be. They will cram anything down our throats no matter who stands up and our new mayor is proving it can happen on both sides of the aisle!

   • Thanks for your reply……so to me it looks like yet another smoke and mirror or dog and pony show brought on to give the illusion of something being done (and considering options) but in reality just a ruse to further the old mayors agenda of eliminating Roberts, so the question is other than the name on the mayors office desk…what has really changed in Evansville politics?

     JMHO

   • I was apprehensive and had many doubts about Brinkerhoff Riley when she first ran for office, but she seems to stand up for the right things at the right times. I would like to give a big shout out to Stephanie! Go Riley Go!

     Girl

     • This will end SBR ever again being appointed to do the administration bidding. Good job SBR.

   • In a post you made only 9 minutes before you made this post, you said, “I was on the Green Space Subcommittee and we included no cost estimates. These numbers are coming solely from the Chairman who drafted the final report.”

     In this post you now say, “The majority of these numbers are coming solely from the Chairman who drafted the final report. I have no idea where he got them.” (Have you asked him? I would.)

     I hate to parse words, but saying “these numbers are coming solely from the Chairman” is a little more damning than saying, “the majority of these numbers are coming solely from the Chairman” because in fact there are two members of the committee whose full time jobs include producing cost estimates for major construction projects. I only know one of those men well enough to trust his figures 100%, but if one or both of those other members assisted the chairman with some part of the cost estimates, it would lend a great deal credence to the figures.

     So, did Mr. Steenberg “solely” produce the cost estimates, or did he “solely” produce “the majority of those numbers?”

     Now it’s your turn to parse words.

     • She says in the same post that she has no idea where he got them. Judging from her willingness to speak up, I believe if she knew for a fact that other committee members helped with those numbers, then would have said so. Not much to parse in I have no idea.

       I think her point was to relay the message that the subcommittees had no knowledge or input on the cost estimates or writing of the report that was labeled a ‘general consensus’.

       • If I were on a committee the chairman of which had inserted estimates that I had no idea where he got, I would ask him where he got them, especially if I thought he may have needed or have gotten assistance in arriving at the estimates. Wouldn’t you?

         I might even ask before I said that I had no idea, as a committee member, where the chairman got the estimates that he inserted into a published report from a committee of which I was a member active in producing such a report that was “labeled as a general consensus.” Wouldn’t you?

         Now, considering there are two members of the same committee who regularly produce or review demolition, construction, and engineering estimates for major construction projects, wouldn’t you also assume those two members might possibly have been asked to assist the chairman in producing or reviewing construction cost estimates? I’m curious. Aren’t you? If you were on the committee, would you ask regarding these issues before saying you had no idea where the chairman got his figures?

         I think there’s more to the story that has yet met our eyes.

         • I would also assume that as a committee member that I would be provided a copy of the final report before the media, and that a committee member might be able to view a draft before finalization. That didn’t happen. It appears that the C&P was able to read it before committee members. I guess we shouldn’t assume anything should we??

           So if I was on the committee and wasn’t given those common courtesies, why would I bother to give the chairman any courtesies before making comments defending my views and stating facts.

     • During the last meeting when the presentations were made, I believe that the subcommittee that presented the exposition center and smaller arena had numbers for projected revenue. Those are the only numbers that I remember from that meeting. I don’t know where the other numbers came from. There were people on the committee that were capable of providing some cost estimates. However, if there was an additional meeting betweeen those people and the chairman after our last committee meeting, why was the rest of the committee not invited to participate? And when was this “consensus” taken that it would be cheaper to build a new building. Perhaps that occurred at the subsequent meeting between the select few as well.

3. It sounds like Chairman Steenberg from the task force might want to explain how he arrived at his numbers in the report if the subcommittees didn’t do any cost analysis when they submitted their subcommittee reports to him. Does he have any relevant experience or knowledge in putting these estimates together?

   • I only know of one person on the entire committee whom I would trust to compile accurate engineering and construction costs estimates, and I have not seen his name mentioned yet.

     If I do see the cost estimates attributed to this single person to whom I refer, then I will believe the report. Otherwise, and so long as it appears the estimates “came solely from the Chairman,” I continue to ask what are the chairman’s qualifications to make engineering and construction estimates, or what was his source of the estimates.

   • Steenberg must have been channeling Debbie Dewey when he wrote this report. Ignore the reality and distort the truth is the way vetting is done in Evansville. It is looking more and more like this sneaky uninformed drivel is coming from the Mayors office just like it has for 8 years and 15 weeks.

     • Bingo! And now since Stephanie Riley has spoken we are up to 5 – 0 saying that the report was a scam. With three more votes a majority of the task force will be outing the report as corrupted.

       • Which of the 5 committee members have publicly used the word “scam” to characterize the report? If they have not specifically used the word “scam,” then which members have characterized the report with descriptions that equate to a scam? Just curious, as I have not counted up to 5, but may have missed a few.

     • More like channeling the members of the old ERC!

4. It is obviously true that, beside the fact that there were contractors and an architect on the task force, it would take at least $60-70 million to build a structure the size and functionality of Roberts Stadium unless someone wants to slap together a pole barn.

   I am not an emotional “Save the Stadium” person and I don’t believe that Jordan Baer is either; he may have started out that way 3 years ago but now he presents his argument with facts he has researched. I am trying to look at the dollars involved. But the reality is that due to total lack of open joint detailed planning for the last 20 years, we have to take responsibility for cleaning up that mess and that clean-up will cost money.

   The line that has been used in the last administration and this one is that the city doesn’t have or can’t spend money on Roberts. But no matter what we do with the stadium and the concrete around it, it will cost the city money. And I definitely a fan of the city maintaining ownership and control of that property. Therefore lets do something with Roberts and the land it sits on that will generate income for the city and, most importantly, provide a good resource for the people of Evansville. Lets not scream about spending money. We(the city) spend money every day and sometimes on really silly things. (Think Earthcare) Also lets not overspend and waste resources that are more scarce now that a few years ago. But above all, lets finally learn how to tell the TRUTH. What a novelty that would be.

5. The city doesn’t want to save Robert’s because it doesn’t want the Ford Center to be a failure. What was Aztar’s payoff in this scheme to lure more people to downtown? Was it a package payoff with the smoking ban exemption included? What in the heck would a central park do?! LMAO! Might as well make it a soup kitchen! I thought a Natatorium would be great, but that is my thought. Another idea is a National Rollerderby track.

6. It pains me to see good people struggling to make the best of a bad situation, when that bad situation was a deliberate calculation of an autocrat who’s name is not even mentioned in the conversation.

   What kind of Svengali can tell the citizens of Evansville: “screw you, I will do damn well as I please” — and the people give him a pass?

   It appears to me, that he is still running things, or should I say a “consensus” of my peers believe he is still running things.

   __

Comments are closed.