Fri 09|03|10

Fort Smith board gets heavy pitch on riverfront baseball stadium

Submitted by The City Wire staff on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 10:38pm.

Consultants partially paid by the city of Fort Smith aggressively pushed the idea of a $20 million baseball park as the key part of an 85-acre riverfront development plan during a Thursday (Dec. 17) special study session of the Fort Smith Board of Directors.

The board voted 5-1 on Feb. 3 to spend $62,000 as a one-third partner in an “opportunity analysis” study of riverfront development options. The Robbie Westphal family and the Fort Smith Regional Chamber of Commerce agreed to each provide $62,000 to fund the study. Receiving the $160,000 fee for the analysis are the firms Cushman & Wakefield, National Sports Services and TRAC.

The push by John Castro and Mike Miller, both with Cushman, included a letter from Miles Wolff, commissioner of the American Association of Independent Professional Baseball. Wolff, in a letter dated Dec. 14 and sent to Fort Smith City Administrator Dennis Kelly, Fort Smith Regional Chamber of Commerce President Paul Harvel and Bennie Westphal, said the association “is very interested in the city as a potential site for expansion.” Wolff visited Fort Smith Dec. 2 and “came away with the strong belief that Fort Smith would be an excellent market for our league.”

Wolff also said Fort Smith is “ideal” as a connection between the northern and southern divisions of the association.

Castro told the board a professional baseball team is the nucleus of the entire 85-acre proposal, with Miller saying the project would be “an extension of downtown” Fort Smith that would tie the history of downtown with “a progressive community” on the riverfront. Castro said during an Oct. 27 presentation to the city board that the 85-acre plan would result in the greatest economic impact by creating up to 350 full-time jobs. If public and private funding is available, the 85-acre project could be built out in three to five years.

The proposed plan includes the ballpark, condos, a “boutique” hotel, retirement community, water features, retirement community and retail and office space.

Miller focused briefly on the office space, saying the “Class A office space” in the area could help the city recruit higher-paying white-collar jobs to the region. Miller said he envisioned the space allowing the city to recruit corporations. As to the retail space, Castro and Miller said they are in the process of contacting more than 300 specialty retailers and national restaurant franchises that often locate in mixed use areas with sports venues to determine their interest in the project.

But the pitch quickly returned to baseball, with Castro telling the board of four ownership groups looking to place expansion teams in the various independent leagues. Also, Castro and Miller reminded the board that Wolff “is very anxious to see how this project will progress.”

When asked if the market could support an independent league team, Castro said initial research suggests it could, with 1 person in 100 from the area (between 250,000-350,000) within a 60-mile radius likely to attend about 50 homes games in a regular season. Average ticket and concession prices would be no more than $15 a person.

Continuing the pitch, Castro and Miller said a stadium could also be used by the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith and area high school baseball teams. Castro said UAFS Chancellor Paul Beran has expressed an interest in the stadium.

The stadium also could be used for concerts, soccer matches, car shows and festivals, according to Castro and Miller.

As to the overall 85-acre site, Castro and Miller repeatedly said there is no other riverfront site like it in the central U.S.

Castro said the complete analysis will be delivered around the first of March, but an “outward educational campaign” in Fort Smith is expected to begin after the holidays.

City Administrator Kelly said the big question when the project was first mentioned was could the Fort Smith metro area support it.

“That answer is moving to ‘Yes,’” Kelly told the board.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

who is controlling who? Who is lying to who?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 03/30/2010 - 9:09pm.

The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.

When you find someone, some group, some government, some agency is lying to you, you know that the entity is trying to control you. One way or the other, this entity is trying to control you. That’s a mechanism of control. If they give you enough wrong information they can control you.

Conversely, if you see an impulse on the part of a human being to control you, you know very well that that human being is lying to you. Not is just going to-but IS lying to you. Check up the facts, you’ll find out they’re always true. That person is trying to control you. He’s got to tell you lies, in order to continue to control, because if you start telling anybody anything close to the truth, they'll start getting tougher and tougher to control. So you can’t control somebody, without telling them a bunch of fibs.

You’ll find very often that leadership has this as its greatest weakness. Leaders (using the term losely) try to control instead of lead. And the next thing you know, they're lying to the people, lie, lie, lie, lie,lie. And it gets worse and worse, then all of a sudden the thing blows up.

You can only lie to people so long. But fortunately or unfortunately, there's always a new loop of lying that starts.

new team

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 03/30/2010 - 3:45pm.

fort smith needs a new team of thinkers and leaders to re-think community involvement and committment to make fort smith an exciting and fun place to live! its the same old song and dance from the same old bunch of wanna-be stick in the mud politicans that think that they know what is best for us! why do all the young people of our city go north on the weekends to have a good time? the city of ft smith is the second largest in the state, and by far, the most boring weekend event! we need new and exciting leadership to make the city a fun place to live! its true that fayetteville is a college town but fort smith is too! why such a difference? its called leadership!

why such a difference?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 03/30/2010 - 4:17pm.

"its called leadership!" ... and socio-economic factors, which I suppose goes back to leadership in some ways.

This is a blue-collar town. Not a lot of time and disposable income to blow on trendy bars, clubs and restaurants.

See you at the Branding Iron.

Private investment follows public investment...not the other way

Submitted by BPryor on Mon, 03/29/2010 - 5:02pm.

Look, private investors are going to put their money in a wise investment. That's how they have the money to invest. Follow the logic here? Yes it seems like the city ends up spending a ton of money to build things that don't stay busy every day of the year, but look what comes along with those public investments. Building the convention center brought the Courtyard, and I'm sure the amphitheater didn't hurt the Coleman's plan to build the Lofts at the West End. The fact is it takes a public investment in a new development area to encourage private investors to follow. It's not a secret that Bennie Westphal has something to gain from the study and construction of a ball park, and the city of Fort Smith certainly has nothing to lose(except hopefully those of you who would like Fort Smith to remain a boring place to live) by building something like a ball park. I am 26 years old and would love to have something to do in this town besides go to the bars on the weekends. Those of you who are middle aged don't really seem to give a **** what the younger generation would like to have for themselves and their children, despite the fact that your children probably don't want to return here after college. Why don't they want to come home to Fort Smith? Because, as many of my friends say, "Fort Smith is so boring...why don't you come to Fayetteville?"

I remember being 26 and

Submitted by The Original Anonymous Chicken (not verified) on Tue, 03/30/2010 - 10:46pm.

I remember being 26 and living in Fort Smith. It was never boring. Neither was it boring when I was 36 and it won't be boring when I'm 46. That's because I don't sit back and demand to be entertained. I make an effort to find fun and interesting things to do. There are plenty if you put forth just a modicum of effort.

As for building the stadium, the one guy in town you'd think would be in favor of a ballpark is against it - the sports editor. He's done research on the subject, which seems to be more than we can say about some city leaders.

http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2010/01/24/commentary/scott_faldon/faldo...

Build it and they will come?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 03/30/2010 - 5:29pm.

Build it and they will come?

Nothing to lose by building a ballpark? Only millions of taxpayer dollars potentially wasted on a risky venture. Why not let private investors take the risk? The city could take a much smaller risk by temporarily (10 years or so) waving property taxes on the property if developed. The city could build better roadways if the property is developed. The city could wave permit fees and inspection fees if the property is developed. You see, the city can offer incentives but let's let the property owners take the risk and pay to develop their own property.

Flawed Logic

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 03/30/2010 - 9:11am.

Your logic is based on public relations campaigns that strategically present (and withhold) information in order for a poorly informed public to reach so-called "logical" conclusions based on incomplete information and emotional responses. No one is denying this is a wise investment for private investors (so long as the costs are externalized to the public.) The question is whether it's a good investment for taxpayers. Clearly, the Courtyard doesn't pay for the Convention Center so how can you justify that?

If you're selling cracker jacks, you can't spend more on the prize at the bottom than you can charge for the entire box. (However, the company who builds the prizes may convince you otherwise.)

Many progressive cities and towns are realizing that schemes to lure in outside corporations leave the public with the short end of the stick. After the costs of providing roads, additional traffic, maintenance, more police, fire and municipal services, not to mention the millions in incentives and tax rebates to accommodate the corporations. Combine that with the corporate hierarchy which concentrates its wealth at the very top meaning the bulk of their money goes out of state and many times overseas. Many progressive cities and towns are realizing that developing a local economy independent of the large corps has a multiplier effect that keeps revenue in the local system.

While our city officials may have perfectly good intentions they simply aren't equipped to come out on top of negotiations with the teams of legal and economic and public relations departments of large corporations and developers hell bent on profit at any costs (so long as it's not their own.)

When you’re shopping for cracker jacks don't fall for the gimmick.

Tax revenue, jobs, quality of place...

Submitted by BPryor on Tue, 03/30/2010 - 1:11pm.

The list goes on and on. You're right, the Courtyard does not pay for the convention center. It does, however, generate tax revenue, provide a place for people attending events at the convention center to stay(giving us the ability to attract larger events to the convention center), provide jobs for dozens of citizens of Fort Smith, and it provides some competition to the Holiday Inn.

I'm talking about stimulating a local economy here. If you have a thriving local economy, it in itself will attract outside influences, potentially alleviating some of the strain on the state and local governments who are currently giving any incentive they can to attract a new employer to the area.

I consider Baldor to be a large corporation that I'm proud to have in this city. It's growth has been allowed by the investment of other large corporations building new plants and requiring new electric generators. These plants are located all over the world. From what you say, all I can possibly gather is that you would like to see these manufacturer's pack up and move out, or simply provide for just our local economy. How does that benefit us? You do realize that over 20,000 Fort Smithians are employed by these large corporations that you so despise?

These companies turning a profit benefits most of us. I don't know about you, but I happen to have some retirement savings in a 401k program, as well as in a Roth IRA. Both of these two types of accounts benefit from the stock market doing well. Do you know what makes stock prices rise?

The problem is systemic.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 03/30/2010 - 6:31pm.

I'll agree that in terms of corporate development, Baldor is a good example and a best case scenario. Especially with its headquarters here in Fort Smith.

The convention center might not be the best example to make your case, given that it could face closure in 2011 without a tax-hike to cover shortfalls in its current budget model.

The concerns I raise with costs which, are usually hidden and not discussed, versus benefits which are always in bold and usually overstated, are valid issues. They deserve consideration by an informed public. While other towns are pulling the plug on incentive programs to corporations who've failed to deliver on their end of the social contract there's no media mention of the negative impacts corporations and corporate subsidy can have on our local economy. Corporate development may be in our best interests but we need all the relavent information in order to make a sound decision, not just a PR advertisement.

In regards to the stock market, beyond your basic moral and legitimate profit you should be aware that there are many ways to raise the price of stock that effect the mass public in an economically negative way. Disasters, war, crime, incarceration and disease increase stock prices. Layoffs increase stock prices. Exporting jobs overseas raises stock prices. Externalizing costs and risks by utilizing off-shore tax havens, tax loop-holes, tax rebates, government subsidies, bailouts, research subsidies. Externalizing the costs of pollution and development. These costs of doing business are shifted to the general public and only half of the U.S. public own stock. That means the half who own stock are individually incentivized to support a downward spiral while the bulk of the wealth is concentrated in the top 1%

The original intent of the stock market was valid but its current state is an abomination. Lowest price at any cost is the reason it now takes two incomes per household, food is genetically modified, riddled with pesticides and chemical fertilizers, our shelves are lined with throw-away products that once garnered a lifetime of use and, that we have to rely on cheap foreign goods to offset massive inflation.

It would be nice to see a "Buy Local / Invest Local" program to wean ourselves from corporate dependence and develop a sustainable local economy. It would be great to encourage more employee owned businesses and coops. I'd love to see a public food coop facility where local farmers could sell their goods year round. To me, that's quality of place. I mean it's Arkansas. The only reason we couldn't supply the bulk of our own food locally is our dependence on corporations that manipulate the system. If we've really got talented creative people why not focus our efforts on developing more independent business. After all, what's more American than Independence?

job recruiting

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 03/30/2010 - 10:29am.

"the costs of providing roads, additional traffic, maintenance, more police, fire and municipal services, not to mention the millions in incentives and tax rebates"

Like Chaffee Crossing? Or not?

Interesting

Submitted by The Observer on Tue, 03/30/2010 - 10:00am.

Let's see if I can follow you. You combine incentives to a company to attract them to locate in a state or locality with infastructure improvements that make a community more attractive. They are both a part of the picture but not the same. The second is much more important to growing a local economic base. Yes, it attracts outside investment that creates jobs and brings new people into a community but also creates a quality place that our own entreprenurial, and creative folks want to be. Pay attention to young Mr Pryor. He knows of which he speaks. If the future of FS is controlled by old curmudgeons that think that investing in our community is some conspiracy by the "good ole boys" and to get to their pocket book, then we are stuck and will continue to suck on the hind tit.

5000 dollar per week allowance

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 03/29/2010 - 12:34pm.

its only five thousand dollars a week that ray baker spends on his nonsense and now he thinks that he deserves more of taxpayer money to buy votes for the upcomming election! five grand a week is a lot of expense money and has not brought a single job to fort smith. who is the person that approves this spending and how is it that taxpayer money is used to buy votes? enough is enough! lets get rid of the 5000 thousand dollar a week club!

follow the waste

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 03/29/2010 - 12:16pm.

ask your city director--what happened to the 12.4 million dollars in taxpayer funds that were to be used for lifesaving communications equiupment. where has all the money gone and where is the accounting on that money! just one penny more-how many times have we heard that song from our city leaders?

good ole boys

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 03/29/2010 - 12:08pm.

phil white has a great idea in building a ferris wheel park downtown but the project fails as it is not supported by the public! now here comes the bailout with public funds as ray baker thinks the city and taxpayers can do a better job of running the ferris wheel. can't help but wonder if director goodman thinks that the ferris wheel is important to his restaurant in the same complex and did he trade votes with the rev don so he could get his street closed in front of his church! looks like the good ole boys are trading votes--oh well--its only taxpayer money-- who cares?

concert use

Submitted by more to come on Sun, 03/28/2010 - 5:37pm.

Help me please
we can not even fill the river front venue we have, it stays empty most of the year, also the convention center.

So what's going to happen with a ball park that is going to provide concerts. UH well I guess you will not be taking any business away from the river front venue and the convention center as they do not have any.

Another empty pretty building that, opps we need to raise another penny to pay for, oh it's only a penny, right.

Private funds only, hey buisness people put up or shut up quit asking the tax payers to pay for your dreams, or RRRR in the honer of your family legacy. If it is truly a legacy put up all of the bucks.

Tired of paying more taxes and then more.

Oh yea the elderly can really aford another tax increase, they are on a fixed budget, opps forgot Mayor Baker will bring them some roses or a free meal, ahh that makes it ok.

why

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 03/07/2010 - 7:00pm.

Why do people here have such a problem with progress made to make our city a more exciting family place to be? Everyone just seems to want to stay stagnant and I for one will not stay here for very long if I do not have things to do with my son. I will move to a city with much more to offer. I love the idea of a ballpark that I don't have to drive over an hour to get to but the fact is during the summer Northwest Arkansas gets my money because I do in fact plan to drive that far to get to the baseball games. Alot. So Fort Smith will be losing out on my entertainment dollars because the fact is there is not really any entertainment here for my family and it seems alot of the commenters like it that way. I just don't get why.

Freeloaders

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 03/28/2010 - 4:34pm.

Maybe this video will make it clear for you.

John Stossel reports on "freeloaders"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0eIPGUa5oU

Everyone needs to watch this!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 03/28/2010 - 10:50pm.

Anonymous, good selection and it gets right to the point. Large cities with major league teams lose money with sports stadiums. What makes the "Bubbas" around here think they can make it profitable? Sure it might be fun, but the City will have to bleed more money to keep it going.

Whyy??

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 03/07/2010 - 10:38pm.

Because the City throws money away. The tens of thousands of dollars wasted by the city government for a "BS" opportunity analysis should have been spent by private parties who would then have freely presented the conclusions for consideration by all interested parties. The convention center mess is another example of why public money should not be involved.

I am never bored and don't spend much money on entertainment.I resent subsidizing unnecessary entertainment when there are other more pressing needs in the community.
I am not against having fun, but $20 million in public funds is "out of the park"

Just don't get why

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 03/07/2010 - 10:25pm.

The scenario for a baseball stadium and team is too expensive. While your dollars would be welcomed locally, not enough of your dollars could support a stadium and baseball team for seasonal entertainment. We would all love top notch entertainment and activity venues but we simply cannot afford it publicly. If it is worthwhile for private investment I say go for it. We do not need "Bread and Circus" to distract us from civic fiscal irresponsibility.

As for things to do with your son, that is a private matter but an excursion out of town is a special adventure for children.

We are not against a

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 03/07/2010 - 9:29pm.

We are not against a ballpark and more entertainment. I would bet 95% or more would be in favor. However, we draw the line when it comes to public funds paying for it. These are risky ideas and with our city's track record their judgement hasn't always been stellar. Build it with private funds.

How you get it done!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/24/2009 - 11:53pm.

Make it a TRUE community investment that costs taxpayers NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, and probably gets it done a lot faster and better.

Incorporate and sell shares to the public something like this.

85 acres at ($20K per)* = $1.7 Million
Ballpark = $20 Million

*don't get hung up on the $20K, it's a guess, same principle if it's $40K

Sell 86,800 shares at $250 a pop to cover the cost of buying the land and building the stadium. Then any future development or leases will be payable to the investors and the city won't be on the hook like we are with the Convention Center. Not to mention, individuals with an ownership stake will do a better job promoting this venue vs. our city government (they don't have to turn a profit, just look at the CC).

If Westpahl really want's to see this project work vs. making a profit off the land AT TAXPAYERS RISK, he could invest like anyone else. He could trade his land for 6,800 shares vs. letting the city invest $20M tax dollars on his land.

Option 1 - the city builds a $20M facility and Westphal has virtually zero risk, but unlimited potential
Option 2 - investors build a $20M facility and Westpahl has whatever risk he is willing to re-invest in the project

DO WE THE TAXPAYERS BUILD WESTPHAL'S DREAM AT OUR RISK, OR DO WE MAKE HIM FIND FELLOW DREAMERS WILLING TO INVEST IN HIS DREAM?

I would personally invest in this development, but don't think it's right to invest taxpayer dollars on something so risky.

Local Investment!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 03/30/2010 - 7:16pm.

I love it!

NOW THIS IS A GOOD IDEA!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 03/30/2010 - 5:31pm.

This is the direction we should be taking.

Can we really trust what

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/24/2009 - 11:29pm.

Can we really trust what this consultant offers when the landowner is (in part) signing his paycheck? No offense to the Westphal's, but their consultant is going to tell them what they want to hear. If nothing else the consultant will have a heavy slant biased to the Westphal's. The city shouldn't be involved in developing private lands. However, since they are, the city really screwed up by not picking up the entire tab to remove any bias. It will be billed as a win-win situatioin for the city and Westphal, but it should have been an honest assesment of what is best for the city (citizens).

Why would a private land owner agree to split the cost of this study? Answer- They have much to gain

Riverfront

Submitted by A. Chicken (not verified) on Fri, 12/18/2009 - 6:09pm.

Well, the American Association is probably the best of the lot in the shaky world of independent baseball.

However, if Arvest Ballpark is any indication (and perhaps it's not - see below), don't expect much in the way of multi-use.

While technically true, "the stadium also could be used for concerts, soccer matches, car shows and festivals", the same was said of Arvest when it was pitched to the voters in Springdale. To my knowledge, there has been just one non-gameday or Fourth of July concert in the two years since the stadium opened and that's the extent of its multi-use.

But to be fair, maybe it would be different with a downtown riverfront ballpark, as opposed to the cow pasture setting of Arvest.

A soccer field won't fit

Submitted by The Original Anonymous Chicken (not verified) on Fri, 12/18/2009 - 6:49pm.

FIFA does allow a range of widths and lengths on soccer fields. But even the smallest regulation soccer field for adult wouldn't fit in a baseball park.

In theory

Submitted by A. Chicken (not verified) on Fri, 12/18/2009 - 7:46pm.

Good catch. In theory, they could build a stadium with a soccer/football configuration (for example, see PGE Park in Portland: home of Triple-A baseball, Portland State University football and minor league soccer) but that is very much against the trend these days and their site plan doesn't suggest they have any intention to build a truly multi-purpose stadium.

As for UAFS using the facility, there is precedence for such usage and it comes from the American Association. The Lincoln Saltdogs share Haymarket Park with the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers (built when current Razorback coach Dave Van Horn was head coach for the Huskers). However, it appears that the university, in conjunction with the city and the independent baseball team, helped fund the development.

Is that what we're talking about here, when they say the chancellor has "expressed an interest"? A stadium built with city, university and private funds?

From the University of Nebraska website:
On July 31, 1999, NU, the City of Lincoln and Nebco Inc., announced plans to construct new two stadiums, a 6,000-seat stadium for the Husker baseball program and the Saltdogs - marking professional baseball's return to the Star City for the first time in 40 years - and a 2,500-seat softball stadium located next to the baseball field.

Building a complex for the Husker baseball and softball programs, as well as the Saltdogs, whose season runs from Memorial Day to Labor Day, required leadership and a forward-thinking vision from all three entities in the project. The $29.53 million dollar cost of the project was primarily divided between the city, Nebco and the University with additional sources contributing for the rest of the project.

But would UA Fort Smith have funds to commit

Submitted by The Original Anonymous Chicken (not verified) on Fri, 12/18/2009 - 9:17pm.

With the college preparing to break ground on a soccer/football stadium (so the rumor goes), would they have money to put toward a new baseball stadium when there's a perfectly good one on campus?

Funding

Submitted by A. Chicken (not verified) on Sun, 12/20/2009 - 12:47am.

By soccer/football stadium, I think you are referring to the intramural fields.

The question remains what financial role, if any, UAFS would play with the proposed stadium.

Would the university provide some amount of construction funding such as the Nebraska example? Or more likely, pay a fixed lease such as Creighton University, which recently signed a deal to play in the new stadium being built in downtown Omaha built primarily to host the College World Series?

Where would any amount of money come from?

On the plus side, if the stadium somehow comes to exist, it would automatically provide UAFS with one of the best baseball facilities in all of D-II (and better than many D-I schools).

There is no soccer/football

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 12/19/2009 - 9:59pm.

There is no soccer/football stadium in the future at UA - Fort Smith. They plan to play soccer at Ben Geren Park when they start the women's soccer team. UA - Fort Smith has plans for a multi-use FieldTurf intramural field on campus (across the street from the new dorms and Stubblefield Arena), but will not be a stadium. What's more, UA - Fort Smith has no plans for a football team.

UA Fort Smith soccer will not play at Ben Geren

Submitted by The Original Anonymous Chicken (not verified) on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 3:26pm.

Not when a regulation field is on campus.

UAFS involvement

Submitted by Travis Stephens on Sat, 12/19/2009 - 9:45pm.

Due to Title IX implications the University will probably be adding more women's sports in the future than men's. One possiblity is for the University to add girls softball and let the ladies use the existing stadium on campus (with some modifications of course). Then move the baseball team to the riverfront.

Missing the Point

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 12/19/2009 - 10:02pm.

The point of all the Riverfront Development promotion is to artificially inflate the value of the land so the current owners can "unload" it on the "unsuspecting" suckers, excuse me, citizens,s of Fort Smith. Just like the convention center, the incomplete downtown condos and the empty office space, the Riverfront project will be "smoke and mirrors" to pick the pockets of the gullible and hopeful taxpayers.

Really Missing The Point

Submitted by Travis Stephens on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 4:04pm.

Anonymous, your claims are misguided.

Sure the current property owners - as well as the neighboring land owners - will see an increase in their property values. But that also means they will see a substantial increase in their property taxes. And who benefits from that? All the other citizens of Fort Smith of course. Or the "suckers" as you prefer to call us.

Aside from all the positive social benefits the riverfront would create for the community, the city would see a considerable boost in property tax revenues. What amount of property tax revenue does the city currently collect from a fruitless, barren, and empty land parcel? Compare that with the tax revenue that will be generated after the area is developed. That's revenue that will go directly towards the benefit of the citizens as it is converted into a whole host of civic services. Then you have to factor in the potential sales tax revenue implications. Not from the sale of the land but from all the activity that will be going on at the developed site (ticket sales, merchandise, food, condo sales and rentals, etc. All that tax revenue gets funneled back to the citizenry. Again, how much tax revenue from sales activites are currently being generated from an empty piece of dirt?

Ever heard the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats"? This is not a win-lose scenario. The citizens will reap benefits too, both socially and fiscally.

black is the new black

Submitted by convivial on Tue, 12/22/2009 - 1:34pm.

Development is a marvelous idea and hopefully brought about to meet the diverse needs of our community. But in reading this article, it does appear as though the city went to a black paint manufacturer to get their honest opinion on what color to paint the buildings.

Studies show stadiums are a waste of public funds

Submitted by The Original Anonymous Chicken (not verified) on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 5:11pm.

There has yet to be economic data that shows stadiums actually build up the public coffers. In fact, most data shows the city never breaks even on the investment in a stadium.

Stadium

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 6:50pm.

When you say "most data shows the city never breaks even on the investment" exactly what data are you referring to?

There's a lot of scholarship on the subject

Submitted by The Original Anonymous Chicken (not verified) on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 9:31pm.

So much so it's included in Economic textbooks ... http://books.google.com/books?id=bhD5Mpo91VEC&pg=PA359&lpg=PA359&dq=stad...

At least one website ... http://www.fieldofschemes.com/

There are also several papers done by independent organizations that back this research. In fact, it seems the only people who say public money for a stadium results in a positive benefit for the city are the people selling stadium projects.

What stadium data?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/22/2009 - 1:31pm.

Your citations provide no comparable data on the subject. Actually it provides no data at all. I was expecting to see an actual example of how a similar sized city as Fort Smith spent x but only received y in return. If you want to convince us then show us where minor league baseball has been a huge fiasco for a community. Not where an NFL owner of a team is extorting the city to pay up or they'll take the team to a different market.
All these references provide are more slanted statements and opinions and a little hype trying to promote their own book sales. Plus it is all about big time pro sports in cities with popluations at a million-plus (Chicago & Tampa). Hardly a fair comparison to Fort Smith. We are talking about a three to four thousand seat arena on the river, not a Jerry Jones 100,000 seat Taj Mahal.
Let's stick with reality and some true apples to apples comparables please.

If MLB stadiums don't help an economy, how could minor one?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/22/2009 - 6:13pm.

As A. Chicken said, the same factors are at play whether we're talking a $1b stadium in Arlington or a $20m stadium in Fort Smith.

Politicians and land developers tout the economic impact of stadium deals. Economists say it doesn't work that way.

The same factors are at play

Submitted by A. Chicken (not verified) on Tue, 12/22/2009 - 2:57pm.

Explain how the stadium will generate additional tax revenue?

Regardless of the size of the city, the same factors are at play.

The biggest is the substitution effect. Pro sports facilities shift spending as opposed to create new spending. People only have so much disposable income. If they spend it at a minor league ballpark, then someone else missed out. That means they didn't spend money at Bowling World or the Malco theater or eat at McDonald's, etc.

Opportunity cost is also at play -- what else could we have done with that money to generate a higher return on investment? At least with amateur baseball, softball, soccer, volleyball and swimming tournaments the city brings in outside spending from visiting participant families.

An independent baseball team only plays about 50 games -- for 315 days of the year, that $20 mil. stadium will sit empty.

With independent baseball, you run the added risk of the league and/or team folding. Minor league ball is much more stable due to its major league affiliations.

Only the unquantifiable and indirect "quality of place" argument works when it comes to the pro baseball stadium.

This is true

Submitted by A. Chicken (not verified) on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 6:16pm.

Which is why I'm strongly for the softball fields, soccer fields, volleyball, swimming, etc. because of their tournament dollar potential and wishy-washy on the minor league stadium. The stadium might raise the quality of place meter by making the area more attractive to outsiders and give people something to do on a hot summer night but it won't make money.

This too is true

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:18pm.

We tried the sofball, soccer, volleyball, swimming, etc. thing last year. And guess what? Fort Smith doesn't want it. We don't want those outsiders coming here! Why my goodness! Have you seen the parents, grandparents, and siblings that come to Fort Smith for some of these tournaments? We don't want these "country club" "high and mighty" folks coming around here spending their money! That's money they made off our labor. Fort Smithians much prefer the local trailer park population anyday. Let's remain a low paid, red-neck, nothing to do, no ambition, no vision community we all have been born to love.

forgot to add

Submitted by A. Chicken (not verified) on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 6:18pm.

.. which is also why I'm very curious about how the stadium will be funded.

The Grinch

Submitted by The Observer on Sun, 12/20/2009 - 5:51pm.

Well, Mr. Enlightenment, Anon the Contrarian, is at it again. He begins by trashing one of the most progessive families in our city by saying, "artificially inflate the value of the land....unload it on "unsuspecting suckers" i.e. the citizens of Fort Smith". Bennie Westphal and his family are not looking to unload anything. They are looking to develop it and some projects will take some public/private partnerships. It will all be out in the open and subject to the FOI. He goes on to mention the Convention Center and a private development of condos. I assume he is talking of the Apartments at West End. They are not condos. There is a lot of downtown apartments under consideration or construction and the demand is high. The smoke and mirrors he mentions are his only in his "Twilight Zone" of reality. Some people are unable approach anything with an open mind and consider the possibilities. "Anon the Contrarian" is one of those folks. Is there anything you are in favor of Anon? Except doing absolutely nothing in fear someone may make a buck or something good would happen to the city that you obviously feel deserves nothing good. Don't you have something better to do at Christmas? Like stealing all the toys from Whoville?

really?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 7:38pm.

So we can count on the westphals donating the land??? I think not...there is a buck to be made and our dumb city administrators will cave in just like they did with paying for the kelly highway bridge for walmart. Seems there was a minor league team in fort smith many years ago....how's it doing??? oh that's right it went belly up and now the land is being used by the National cemetery.

Belly Up?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:17pm.

When did that team go belly up? Oh yea. It was in the 50's I believe. So your saying that nothing has changed in Fort Smith in over 50 years? I assure you, the Westphal family is not in this for the money. I for one applaud their vision. It is time the citizens of Fort Smith to take a risk. You can say this is a "build it and they will come" theory, but I can certainly assure you that if you "don't build it, they will NEVER come". This isn't the 1950's, let's move forward.

Fort Smith Red Sox played in the 1980s

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/23/2009 - 5:40pm.

It was an independent league team that played at Andrews Field, and I think, Hunts Park.

The team was formed in 1979. Not sure when it folded, I don't think it lasted 10 years.

Ft Smith Red Sox

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/23/2009 - 11:19pm.

Yes, you are correct. However the Red Sox were more of a semi-pro team playing mostly week end ball if I recall. Too their games were played at Westark. I think a riverfront stadium the citizens would be proud of along with a team in the American Association could be a winning proposition. I welcome the city's due diligence on the project and if their studies indicate it makes economic sense, then let's do it! One word of warning however, the city will need to do a better job of selling this to the citizens than it did with the recently rejected riverfront sports complex.