Local Businessman Alan Brill who has been a vocal proponent of using Roberts Stadium as an events center has launched a lawsuit to stop the demolition of the stadium. In the suit Brill accuses Mayor Winnecke of using deception to get the authority to move forward with the demolition. You can read the suit as filed on the link below.
It’s about time!
Someone needed to step forward and challenge this. I’d just like to see them admit the land and building are surplus property and SELL IT at auction.
This is what you do with surplus, you auction it off like it’s an old police cruiser and give private individuals a chance to make something out of it that might be useful and generate some revenue back.
How much revenue will a park generate? That’s right, not a single, solitary, friggin cent. In fact, it’s gonna cost us several million up front and then God-knows-what in perpetuity for upkeep.
This will only enrich some cronies who get the contracts to tear down the building and build the park.
The fact of the matter is Mayor Lloyd Winnecke might call himself a “Republican”, but he is certainly no fiscal conservative. His administration should be viewed with shame by anyone calling himself a fiscal conservative. I am a Republican and I, for one, barring some miracle about-face on this issue refuse to support his reelection. I’ll be voting for, hopefully, a third party opponent who will bring back some fiscal sanity to Evansville and start looking to the future. Maybe a Libertarian will step up and show the Republicans how it’s supposed to be done in a free market.
Whether or not I agree with them, I can understand why some people would be opposed to tearing down Roberts Stadium. And whether or not I agree with them, I can understand why some people might feel the committee should’ve done its work differently. However, surely you would agree that this is a matter of policy and not something suitable for the courts.
For better or worse we live in a republic that is built upon democratic principles. This was a central issue at stake in the election, and elections have consequences. You can agree or disagree with what he chose, but our current system is setup so that the mayor makes this decision. Assuming no constitutional issues are in play, matters of policy shouldn’t be litigated like this and shouldn’t be decided by judges.
I’m surprised and disappointed that a libertarian like you would support judicial activism in this way.
The Mayor could only make a recommendation to be approved by the City Council. That was my understanding of the situation.
But in my estimation, the Mayor has neglected long term responsibilities like sewer repair, and has chosen instead to pursue more government solutions to problems that should have been solved easily in one day with one auction of the property, contents and land surrounding Roberts. Instead, he has chosen to recommend the path of more useless spending with no prudence, no wisdom, and no foresight under a false pretense of task force vetting.
Let’s say hypothetically the Mayor decided to adopt a policy of disbanding the police and fire departments in favor of pouring all City funds into Parks, and the Council just went along with it… Do you think the people should have no recourse to destructive policies in this example?
Whatever the legal merits of this case, I’m sure a libertarian like you can agree that Mayor Winnecke’s policies in this area are disastrous for the long term health of this City.
Even accepting that everything you say is true, I fail to see where a law was broken. The issue here isn’t whether it was wise or unwise to tear down Roberts Stadium. The issue here is whether that should be decided by a judge, or by an elected representative.
When an elected official makes a policy decision that you or others disagree with, the recourse is in an election. There are exceptions to this, primarily violations of Constitutional authority or breaking the law. But neither of those exceptions appear to apply in this case.
To use your example, the city has contractual agreements with both the police and fire unions. Breaking those contractual obligations would be an event of default and give rise to a tort in a court of law. But ultimately, in the absence of contractual obligations or state law, the courts cannot dictate funding for specific departments.
The only candidate to expressly run on a platform of preserving Roberts Stadium was Rick Davis. Winnecke clearly expressed an openness to demolitioning it and using the area for another purpose. Like it or hate, elections have consequences.
Ultimately, my point isn’t about the merits of the Roberts Stadium decision. My point is that you’re advocating a disastrous form of judicial activism that contradicts fundamental principles of republican government.
I do see where you’re coming from on the lawsuit. If Mr. Brill can somehow prove that the task force was a foregone conclusion, he may have a case.
I am confident that if the lawsuit has no merit, it will be thrown out. But again, that’s not really my point at all either seeing as I disagree with Mr. Brill’s misguided approach as much as I disagree with Mayor Winnecke’s approach.
On the subject of Roberts Stadium’s role in the election, Winnecke’s position prior to the election was that he would form a task force to look into the various proposals. My proposal, which was submitted through the proper channels on the website provided, was never part of the deliberations of the task force. The only options allowed a hearing were those that kept the land in public hands and spent more money.
For this reason, I think that Mayor Winnecke not only reneged on a campaign promise, but in fact failed miserably in his first true litmus test of fiscal conservatism.
Actually no, Brad, even if Mr. Brill proved that it wouldn’t be an actionable issue in court. Mayor Winnecke didn’t have to setup a task force. He could’ve simply decided it himself. Instead he created a task force for a recommendation and sought public input. Frankly, he could’ve ignored the task force’s recommendation altogether and it still wouldn’t be a matter for a judge to decide.
While the lawsuit has no merit, it ultimately costs all of us. The city must now spend money on wasteful legal fees to have it dismissed. This is a frivolous lawsuit and we’re all paying for it.
Josh,
Point taken on the lawsuit, but can I get you on record here that you oppose Winnecke’s decision and supported Option C?
Josh….
For my 2 cents, if we truly live in a republic with democratic principles then IMHO the stadium should have been moth balled until the public had a chance to vote on a referendum concerning the fate of a public structure/resource….many people including myself predicted the outcome of the committee before they ever got down to vetting ideas, to me it was a done deal way before Mr Winnecke took office…as they say the fix was in. 🙂
JMHO
Three cheers for Mr. Brill!
Goggle Mr. Brill professional history before he fell on hard time.
Extremely impressive print media back ground.
Get ready Winnekee for a legal battle next to none.
I just read the basis for the lawsuit, and Mr. Brill is taking the wrong approach here, in my opinion. He’s still asking the government to keep the facility and make use of it as a publicly owned facility. This is the Option B approach of Jordan Baer in essence.
Option C – selling the building and land at auction to private interests who may have their own ideas on what to do with the building and property – is still not being discussed.
Mr. Brill has put in a lot of work on this issue, but his legal action will not go anywhere. He does not have legal standing and nothing illegal was done. He is unhappy in that his recommendation did not prevail.
He does not want to auction the property off–he wants to preserve the building and use it for other things. That is not going to happen. Mr. Brill you did your best. You lost this one. Work on something else–like Johnson Controls
…or join those of us calling for Option C.
Option C was never put on the table for discussion. Why? Privatizing and commercial use of Roberts would have been the best option.
This town’s slimey Elitests , –misnomered as “Movers and Shakers” will continue to rule, but it is commendable that Mr. Brill has stood up for what he believes in, and has put his money where his mouth is, and thumbs his nose at the Creep, who owes his patootie to the Democrat Party’s backing, for his ascendency to the Mayor of Evansville’s Throne.
Why not sell it? Use the money to improve sewers/fix headstones. This isn’t rocket science.
It is when you’re talking about egotist politicians holding the abacus.
Everyone on here who lives in the city of Evansville has standing in such an action. That property has value and is carried as an asset on the books.
For one individual to arbitrarily wipe that value off of the books, and add demolition costs on top of that, seems all to reminiscent of Weinzapfel’s one man ego trip to build a new arena in a TIF district so as to avoid a referendum on his decision to spend $127.Million in taxpayer dollars.
This is the type of government they want to export to the ENTIRE county? How stupid do they think voters are?
__
Maybe it is time to seek legislation that matches the dollar amount that triggers a referendum on new spending with a similar dollar amount triggering a referendum when a political subdivision wishes to wipe that value off of their books and thereby leave that political subdivision with fewer assets.
__
Comments are closed.