Article published June 10, 2005
Sports arena belongs in East Toledo
So the city of Toledo has done another arena study and finally gotten the results it wanted from the start. Of course it is not until the end of The Blade article that it is noted that the study does not include the cost of buying the downtown property.
Nor does it mention that the people who are pushing for the downtown arena are the same people who own the land that the arena and parking garage would be built on, land that was bought on speculation with the hopes of big profits from the city.
We would be pushing for the arena to be built on land that we owned, too. That doesn't make for unbiased decision-making.
Once again we run into the East Toledo prejudice. Why are downtown businesses more important than East Toledo businesses? Why is it perceived that people are more willing to go to a bar after a sporting event with their families than a restaurant?
Are people really more likely to go to the Durty Bird or Bronze Boar than any of the Docks restaurants, to say nothing of the dozen family-oriented eateries that line Front and Main Streets?
A small group of businessmen is pushing for the new sports arena to be built downtown for their own selfish, self-promoting reasons.Build the new sports arena where it belongs: East Toledo!
DEBRA and GARY REDDISH
Plymouth StreetThink of what's best for entire downtown
The argument continually put forward by proponents of an East Toledo arena reminding us that the voters of the City of Toledo have already agreed and therefore settled the issue of the location of any future arena lacks a comprehensive grasp of that previous vote.
I, like many of my brethren, voted in the affirmative for this proposal because it appeared that Toledo might have reached a developmental critical mass that had finally attracted serious private investment. The vote was an acknowledgement that a small public infrastructure investment would pay off handsomely to the tune of almost $200 million. Alas, we were all led astray and the promises of non-taxpayer investments were not fulfilled.
I don't believe that the majority of the voters were reaffirming that the East Side was the best and only place to put a new arena but that it was a significant civic opportunity and the best option we had at the moment.
Now that the concept is virtually dead and buried, the public discussion should be focused upon how to augment the downtown area (which should include the East-Side riverfront) and best utilize a future arena, most especially if the cost is to be mainly shouldered by the taxpayers of the city and/or county.
Downtown Toledo will never again be a "mecca" for offices and shopping, but it could be the regional entertainment district with some effort and foresight.
Despite the occasional contrary opinion, the Mud Hens move to downtown is a clear example of what could continue to progressively happen to an old rust-belt city.
Bryce Blair
Thornapple DriveEast Side only viable space for new arena
I can remember when Portside was built. The cry was "this will revitalize downtown." When Portside lost its luster, the cry became "the convention center will save downtown."
When that failed, the next was to build the ballpark downtown, and when that was not enough, we now hear that the arena will be downtown's salvation.
The plain fact of the matter is that the last great open space of usable land is between I-280 and Main Street on the East Side. This is the only viable space to build a large arena with adequate parking.
Upscale retailing on this site will not work because the people with money do not live in this area and will not come here to shop.
This site is convenient to I-280 with our new bridge and I-75. It is close enough to downtown and the Docks for people to visit the restaurants before or after an event.
I also remember that the people voted to put the arena on the East Side. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
LOUIS VISI
North Wheeling StreetInconsistencies in arena editorial
I think there were several inconsistencies and maybe even misrepresentations in your recent editorial "The 'arena' games."
Correctly, you stated that Columbus developer Frank Kass unveiled the original Marina District plan, saying most of it would be paid by private money. You went on to state that Mr. Kass was frustrated by the city's inability to move forward at a reasonable pace.
The city failed to move forward not because it was falling all over itself but because it turned out that developer Kass had no private funds available and was looking for the city to put in many times the $8 million the voters approved in the Section 79 waiver.
Next you came out strongly in support of an East Side arena, which, if it is incorporated in the Marina District, will be built alongside "market rate" housing. Don't bother reserving one of those condos for me.
When I party, I party. When I'm home, I'm home.
I have no interest in paying several hundred thousand dollars for a riverfront condominium next to an arena. Fans leaving a hockey game after several hours of drinking beer don't usually act like worshippers leaving the church down the block on Sunday morning.
Finally, you called it a ridiculous use of valuable riverfront property to have a big-box outdoor store on the river. Is a windowless arena where all of the fans are sitting in seats looking down on a sheet of ice rather than out the window at the river view a less ridiculous use of riverfront property?
The arena should be where the professionals who plan these sorts of things say it should be and not where political pressure dictates.
PAUL T. AVERY
SylvaniaThe powers that be ignore voter wishes
It appears once again that regardless of what the people want, there are those within our community who are going to push and shove until they get what they want. The voters have already decided that the place for the new arena was to be the Marina District; however, the powers that be evidently think that this is not a good idea.
The people voted four years ago on this, but one reason after another has been given as to why this is not a good idea. An outside consultant had to be hired at a sum of $70,000 to tell us that downtown would require less money and space for parking. (I wonder how many parking spaces could have been bought for $70,000.)
Over these past years we have seen it is not about what the people want but who will do what they think is best for the people. Once again, we are seeing that the "good ol' boy" network is alive and well.
PAUL J. GIBBS
Heffner StreetNothing wrong with the arena we've got
A recent editorial continued The Blade's beating of the drum for a new arena, referring to the Sports Arena as dilapidated. What ivory tower do you people reside in? I think the building is in very good condition inside and out.
Last year, we took some friends from out of town to see a Storm game. Our friends have seen ECHL hockey games at other venues in other cities and said that Toledo had the best place to view a game, and they had a great time on top of it.
With so many other real problems in this city (better police response time, roads, etc.), The Blade should be proud of the great place we have to watch hockey and encourage city government to focus its time and money on the problems in this city that really do degrade on our daily overall quality of life.
New arena - low priority!
MARK DRESCHER
East Glenn DriveOnce again, East Side doesn't matter
The people voted for a sports arena on the East Side. What happened? Didn't the votes matter? That $70,000 was wasted in my opinion.
It seems the East Side doesn't matter, just like so many other times.
LOTTE RODRIGUEZ
Knower Street
Permanent Link
|
|
 |
|
Search
advertisement
