LETTER TO THE EDITOR – Wesselman Park

The community meeting held by the park board on Sept. 15 to hear citizens’ views about the placement of a baseball complex in Wesselman Park was arduous, lengthy, and frustrating.

For the first two and one-half hours, David Dunn and his hired environmental studies group, Bernardin and Lochmueller, droned on explaining concepts that, as head of the study Mr. Tom Cervone stated, could have been defined using the condition “better, worse, or the same.” If that rule of “better, worse, or the same” had been followed, the Dunn baseball portion of the meeting would have lasted about 30 minutes.

It became clear that Mr. Dunn is not going to budge from his insistence on spending $18 million on the ball complex, an amount totally out of line given the relative need for such a project. There are great differences between needs and wants. I vote for spending less by placing these commercial fields in another location and have money left for future needs.

Here is the kicker. When the original deed was written for the Wesselman land transfer from the state to the city, it contained the following quote: “Provided, that if said real estate is used for purposes other than park purposes the title to said real estate shall revert to the State of Indiana.” This means we would have to look at the definition of “park” as it was used in 1963, the date of the deed. We would need to look at all other dealings of the Park Board to determine if only “park purposes” strictly have been and will be adhered to. Senator Wesselman was laying ground rules for the future.

This land was to be used as only park land (not commercial purposes) in perpetuity.

I don’t want the city to lose the Wesselman land, but this may be what it takes to make people realize exactly what is being pushed at warp speed down everyone’s throat. Slow down! The rush is Dunn.

To Members of E/V Park Board:

There is a difference between “park” and “recreation”; otherwise why would you include both terms in the name of the department which you serve. This difference is very important in considering the question you have before you.

The term “park” is very inclusive. It refers to relaxing, enjoying a rich natural experience, walking alone or with friends or family, experiences that are personal, not structured. These park experiences are inclusive. And they are available to all citizens.

The term “recreation” refers to an exclusive experience. This is exemplified by structured activities such as team sports. We all know that the majority of citizens in this area do not participate in organized sports, so in this sense “recreation” excludes the majority.

This is not to say that one or the other is bad, just different concepts.

This idea can be taken further when dealing with the CVB baseball complex. In this case, the envelope is pushed out to include a commercial aspect, that being to make money for the specific group of businesses that the CVB represents. Again, there is nothing wrong with making money. It is the fact that the location is inappropriate, especially considering the “only for park purposes” clause in the quit claim deed which gave the park land to the city from the state.

I realize that you believe the stadium weighs heavily in the decision. But it should not. The stadium and its fate should be a separate issue from the decision on the ball complex. As you know, you are obliged by your position on the Park Board to do what is right for the park, to do the very best for all citizens, not just a few.

On the other hand, the stadium issue is gummed up with mega-bucks and city politics that have upset citizens for awhile here. What happens with the stadium effects the ball complex but should be decided on its own merit. And the city has at least a year to render a decision on the fate of the stadium. It still must function until the arena is ready. If you look at the ball complex as an easy answer to getting rid of the stadium, then you short-change all the citizens of Evansville and Vanderburgh County because you do not consider the bigger picture, that being the appropriate land use going forward. The future is a long time.

It is important to remember the financial aspect of this ball complex. First are Dunn’s figures and projections realistic? Has anyone run independent comparisons? One hundred thousand visitors seems high, very high. As the groundskeeper for USI stated, have details such as umpires, ambulances, groundskeepers etc. etc. etc. been even considered much less planned? Even if you have very competent sales people at the CVB, it will take several years to build up a reputation and a following. We are not resort central. Heck, we’re not even Bloomington, a town that is a lot more hip, green, and youthful. And again, to put all this hype and activity close to the preserve and the neighbors is not smart. Plus $18 million? That’s way over the top.

Secondly you may have read the information that Steve Heeger and Ted Huppert sent you regarding the two types of sound measurements that could have been used when doing noise studies for the ball complex. What other bits of information have not yet surfaced that will weaken or dispute other portions of the studies presented at the Community Meeting of the Park Board on Sept. 15? Try very hard to imagine yourself living on Boeke Rd. right across from Wesselman Park. Even if you like baseball, it could get very old after awhile. Then consider if you find the game annoying.

Thirdly there is a huge difference between needs and wants. The city is in mega-debt for the arena and perhaps more. The Centre is not cutting it. This CVB debt would take it over the top (Even though I realize that the CVB debt is not city debt, it is in a sense approved or disapproved by city and county officials.) There would be little to no extra funds in the capital account for the CVB to use on any other worthy project for a very long time.

Fourth, if the mayor wanted Roberts down, he should have addressed that issue at the time of starting the arena process, and not dumped it on someone or some group to solve the problem and face the public discontent. Yes there are still uses for Roberts, and yes, I personally would like it razed. There are many passionate opinions out there for and against these views. What if you elected to use Roberts for five more years? It could make the money to pay for its demise or repairs.

Can the city utilize Recovery Zone bonds or Build America bonds to raze Roberts? Or has the city reached its maximum amount allowed for bonding? Just a thought, but I do think it is the city’s (the city council and the mayor) responsibility to deal with what is definitely an issue intimately intertwined with the new arena. After all, it is the city that owns Roberts. The Park Board has been assigned the task of managing it, and in fact, even some of the “managing” is tasked to SMG with promotions and ticket sales.

Think about this. If Roberts can be razed, by whomever and by whatever method, then I can guarantee that the land will be put back to park: natural, lush, green with native species, and amenities for all citizens. I have had encouraging discussions with Sycamore Land Trust and various charitable foundations regarding such a project. Please hold me to it. Green is the right thing to do.

Most sincerely,
Martha Crosley