You are here:
Home 
Opinion Open Letters The Civic Arena's future has been all about m...
Opinion Open Letters The Civic Arena's future has been all about m...
| Open Letters is a place where the letters to the editor published by the Post-Gazette are offered up for broader comment and discussion. |
Links: More opinion |
| Letters published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are offered here for broader comment and discussion. |
Archives
- December, 2010 (125)
- November, 2010 (112)
- October, 2010 (122)
- September, 2010 (103)
- August, 2010 (51)
- July, 2010 (156)
- June, 2010 (379)
- May, 2010 (363)
- April, 2010 (606)
- March, 2010 (737)
- February, 2010 (721)
- January, 2010 (740)
- December, 2009 (762)
- November, 2009 (739)
- October, 2009 (760)
- September, 2009 (731)
- August, 2009 (537)
- July, 2009 (563)
- June, 2009 (517)
- May, 2009 (622)
- April, 2009 (606)
- March, 2009 (658)
- February, 2009 (604)
- January, 2009 (489)
- December, 2008 (293)
- November, 2008 (239)
- October, 2008 (264)
- September, 2008 (204)
- August, 2008 (162)
- July, 2008 (230)
- June, 2008 (92)
- May, 2008 (93)
- April, 2008 (5)
- January, 2008 (3)
- September, 2007 (1)
Source: All categories and sections
Sunday, 28 November 2010 02:50
The Post-Gazette editorial "On to the Future: Arena Demolition Was the Right Call for Pittsburgh" (Sept. 20) was the fourth editorial condemning the Civic Arena that was supported by fallacy, not facts.
In 2001, the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission approved my nomination, making the arena eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. A June 9 PG editorial espoused, "despite claims to its historic significance," which illustrates the jaundiced view of your agenda.
In 2007, Gov. Ed Rendell, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato, the Pittsburgh Penguins, et. al., signed the "term sheet" that financed the new arena with gaming monies promised to lower our property taxes. They also agreed to demolish the Civic Arena and pave it into a parking lot! This was done before the Sports & Exhibition Authority's phony historic review process took place this year.
The Sept. 16 vote completed the SEA's scheme to demolish the Civic Arena. The board, appointed by Mr. Onorato and Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, employed a historic review process of their own design by hiring politically connected consultants.
As a member of the SEA's historic review committee, I can personally cite their consultants' conflicts of interest, bogus reports, ignoring committee recommendations for preservation and the censorship employed.
The Civic Arena was all about money, not preservation. It involved demolition and construction contracts that benefit developers as well as generating campaign contributions to elected officials who control the agenda.
Pittsburgh City Planning's vote favoring demolition didn't come as a surprise. On Tuesday, the SEA chairman, Sen. Wayne Fontana, commented, "If we went the other way, the Penguins would have sued us." This was a "done deal" ignoring the historic merits, the will of the people, while violating RAD and historic preservation laws.
I possess knowledge not reported in the media. Those who want to know the whole truth can send me an e-mail ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) for "the rest of the story."
GARY J. ENGLISH
Penn Hills
Comments (13)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by LeBro, November 28, 2010 - 08:25 AM
Much money has changed hands from the sports industry to the politicians resulting in the taxpayers once again getting ripped off and having to pay for the work place of another sports team. If what SEA chairman, Sen. Wayne Fontanta says is true about the Penguins suing the SEA if the Civic Arena is not demolished, I say don't demolish it and as far as the law suit is concerned I say, "Bring it on!"
-
- +2
-
-
written by avigilantone, November 28, 2010 - 08:52 AM
Supergenius,
It didn’t surprise me that you would be the first to post on the Civic Arena.
“Call people crooked all you want.”
I shall and will continue, dispute that claim. I’ve supported it with facts that you will continue to ignore.
Tell me what this year’s “historic review” was about if they already signed a deal three years ago to tear down the Civic Arena and pave it into a parking lot?
See: http://www.thepittsburghchanne...etail.html
“All I hear is that its historic.”
Dispute that too? Not one article was ever written on the PHMC application that was approved in 2001, making the Civic Arena eligible for a listing on the National Registry. Dispute that too?
“But...what are you going to do with the arena? You people never have any real ideas or plans.”
Have you read the “Effects Report”? I sincerely doubt you have read all 106 pages of it. Were you a member of the SEA’s “Interested Party” Committee? I doubt you were too. That’s where suggestions were made and ignored.
Besides my suggestion of competing venues and making it open to the public for youth hockey, et al, the IP Committee has recommended a worldwide study/competition to bring in the best minds for reuse.
“And yes, money does matter.”
Then look at the SEA’s “Holding Cost” report. It was bogus, and used to gain public support for demolition with the taxpayer’s holding the bag with monthly costs. You bought that, “hook, line and sinker”. The expenses were inflated and they conveniently omitted the Civic Arena’s parking revenue. Daily commuters park there as well as attendees to the Consol Energy Center, which does not have enough parking.
Then look at the costs. I’ve cited them before.
RAD support was $37 million, add the other $50 million that 3 Rivers Stadium received, that is $87 million wasted on two venues, exceeding this year’s total RAD Budget.
Then there is $9.3 million in current debt, add $5 million more for demolition costs and over $61.1 million in federal earmarks for redevelopment, adding to our national debt.
Eh, why waste my words?
I should save my Arby's sandwich wrapper from yesterday. One day it may be called historic.
Your idiocy precedes yourself.
Dispute the “Term Sheet”, bogus historic review, “holding cost” report or the financial figures I’ve cited, but back your position with facts, not candy wrappers.
Gary J. English
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
-
- +4
-
-
written by BigGuy, November 28, 2010 - 10:34 AM
The letter writer is correct and I happen to know one of the players in the save the arena movement.
The projections for the development of the property after demolition make very little sense as the demand for office/retail/residential property on the site is minimal.
Also, once again, what's most likely to happen is the city/county/state will help subsidize more development in the form of Tif's, tax credits whatever, and again deprive the area of tax dollars.
Giving up the land and development rights to all of the properties to local sport franchises, and who get to keep all revenue sources means less tax revenue.
Also, what people forget is the leases for these facilities were written for 29 1/2 years instead of 30 years. Why ?
Because the teams would have to pay the tax value on a 30 year lease.
Professional sports teams have perfected the art of blackmailing cities into getting all of the gravy while dumping costs on taxpayers
The projections for the development of the property after demolition make very little sense as the demand for office/retail/residential property on the site is minimal.
Also, once again, what's most likely to happen is the city/county/state will help subsidize more development in the form of Tif's, tax credits whatever, and again deprive the area of tax dollars.
Giving up the land and development rights to all of the properties to local sport franchises, and who get to keep all revenue sources means less tax revenue.
Also, what people forget is the leases for these facilities were written for 29 1/2 years instead of 30 years. Why ?
Because the teams would have to pay the tax value on a 30 year lease.
Professional sports teams have perfected the art of blackmailing cities into getting all of the gravy while dumping costs on taxpayers
-
- +5
-
-
written by UMOC, November 28, 2010 - 08:41 PM
I've said on here before that the Arena should be preserved until and unless a fully funded plan is in place to develop the area. In the meantime, if those wanting to keep it come up with their fully funded plan for preservation, fine. If not, tear it down. But to tear it down to make space for development which is still speculative is folly.
-
- +0
-
-
written by John Lewandowski, November 28, 2010 - 09:21 PM
I appreciate that a lot of folks want to 'Save the Igloo', but I don't really see any good reasons for doing so other than sentimental ones. Let them sell everything they can from the building and then melt down the roof and mold the steel into a statue of Mario Lemieux.
-
- -1
-
-
written by Ironman, November 28, 2010 - 09:50 PM
BigGuy - Your comments are "spot on".
There are too many shady deals done on Grant St. The whole situation makes me sick in the stomach.
It's what we have come to expect from our city fathers by selling out to the Lemieux's, Nutting's and Rooney's of this world.
They are laughing all the way to the bank.
There are too many shady deals done on Grant St. The whole situation makes me sick in the stomach.
It's what we have come to expect from our city fathers by selling out to the Lemieux's, Nutting's and Rooney's of this world.
They are laughing all the way to the bank.
-
- +0
-
-
written by KOKelly, November 28, 2010 - 11:26 PM
Hey, "supergenius", what has Rome done with the Colosseum lately? There hasn't been a gladiator fight or a Christian eaten by a lion there in more than 1500 years. And they haven't torn it down yet to build a parking lot. What a bunch of idiots, eh? Maybe you should move to Italy and enlighten them!
-
- +2
-
-
written by avigilantone, November 29, 2010 - 12:28 AM
UMOC,
Speculative or not, there are a lot of issues surrounding the issue, like the historic merits, losing federal monies earmarked, political corruption and more. I would be happy to give you “The Rest of the Story” in an email.
Just send me a reply to my email address below. I will give a history of the Civic Arena discourse that begins in 1999.
John Lewandowski,
If you truly appreciate the folks that want to “Save the Igloo”, then I would suggest you learn about the issue and not make snide comments like melting down the roof for a statue of arena extortionist, Mario Lemieux.
BigGuy,
You are correct about the “too many shady deals done on Grant Street. I’ve cited some of this in my piece titled, “The Rest of the Story”. It is a good history, including some incite with the Regional Renaissance Initiative. Send me an email and I will be happy to give you a copy. It’s far too large to post on this site.
KOKelly,
Indeed, the Colosseum is still standing today. It reminds me of a webpage I created on the other deceitful discourse known as the Regional Renaissance Initiative and Plan B.
While my webpage is no longer on the web, I do have a classic piece of political hypocrisy that still exists. You will be surprised the website still exists. It talks about the “first rate” venue that was torn down, Three Rivers Stadium. I invite you to read the words of former Mayor, Tom Murphy at:
http://3riversstadium.com/about/letter.html
Regards,
Gary J. English
“The Rest of the Story”
at: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
-
- +1
-
-
written by Ironman, November 29, 2010 - 11:30 AM
The Colisseum is a major tourist attaction in Rome. You pay admission to get into the Colisseum. It's still a money-maker.
I don't think that I would pay a cent to visit the Igloo.
Common Gary, move-on. Tear the damn thing down.
I don't think that I would pay a cent to visit the Igloo.
Common Gary, move-on. Tear the damn thing down.
-
- -1
-
-
written by avigilantone, November 29, 2010 - 11:58 AM
IronMan,
Who’s to say the Civic Arena is or cannot become a tourist attraction, like the St. Louis arch, Seattle Space Needle, et al ???
Maybe you’ve never experienced the wonder of the dome opening, I have. This is a "one of a kind" structure that will never be replicated.
Regardless, this is a “regional asset” not a disposable structure that you make it out to be. WE STILL OWE $9.3 million on it and the SEA will spend $5 million to tear it down. That’s $14.3 million and we’ll have nothing to show for it.
When asked where the SEA is going to get its money to tear it down, they responded, “Various sources”. What a laugh! They can’t even pay for the utility costs at the D.L. Lawrence Convention Center, let alone pay themselves their own salaries. So they tapped the taxpayers through a DCED grant for $1.5 million.
Check it out: http://www.dced.state.pa.us/in...fault.aspx
Put in ... Sports And Exhibition Authority ...into the recipient search parameter.
There are three things you and others of your ilk continue to ignore.
1. RAD Law
2 Preservation Law
3. And the costs for redevelopment.
I’ve identified over $61 million in federal earmarks and untold state, county and local tax dollars being thrown at the project, not to mention TIF tax breaks.
Bottom line, the majority support preservation. Dispute the letters to the editor, polls taken and the SEA’s own “effects report” documentation.
So you won’t sway me, this is a crime in a literal and fiscal sense. Prove that this whole process was honest and I’ll concede. I have the facts, you just make baseless assertions.
Gary J. English
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
-
- +1
-
-
written by Ironman, November 29, 2010 - 09:32 PM
I'm not making baseless acusations, just opinions.
-
- -1
-
-
written by avigilantone, November 29, 2010 - 10:13 PM
IronMan,
I never said baseless accusations, rather baseless assertions, a statement without support or reason.
One thing we can agree on is that there are “too many shady deals done on Grant Street”.
If you email me, I’ll send you the rest of the story and it does mention David Matter and Bob Cranmer. I could easily go on another tangent tying in the Regional Renaissance Initiative and property assessments.
If you’re interested, fire off an email. The document is much too long to post.
Bottom line, the Civic Arena deal was corrupt, I can prove it and it will cost the taxpayers far more to redevelop.
Gary J. English
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Eh, why waste my words? None of you "save the igloo" people have any answers. You just want it to be an unused, hoarded item to stare at. All in the name of history. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I should save my Arby's sandwich wrapper from yesterday. One day it may be called historic. I should also tell the people in the welfare trailer park I pass everyday on my way to work never to move their trailers when they die or move because they are historic! Yes. A new bridge goes up in Pittsburgh? Leave the old one unused as well! It's historic! Get a grip.
Have a great Sunday.