Bailey makes very strong and valid points in this refutal.
-------------------------------
Demolition Man's plan to level the Alamodome stinks
W. Scott Bailey
Now I know why so many newspapers have turned to the Internet to distribute their product.
It's a way for some to try and distance themselves from that not-so-flattering "fishwrap" label.
But sometimes the stench is so strong that it passes right through the computer screen with all the pleasantries of that rotting runaway Easter egg that fell behind the refrigerator weeks ago.
Take, for example, one of the latest offerings by a certain local arts columnist. We'll call him Demolition Man because of one of his latest contributions, this one calling for the leveling of the Alamodome to make way for more essential things like art ins utions and galleries.
This from Demolition Man: "Everyone with any sense knew the Alamodome would be an economic folly even before the voters were suckered into approving a sales tax increase to pay for it. History has justified the cynics."
Translation: "Everyone" means those who have typically been part of San Antonio's "We Don't Want It Society." And "history" refers to selective memory that helps substantiate a stupid idea.
More translation: "Cynics" refers to anyone who agrees with Demolition Man.
Ignorance is bliss
There is apparently nothing about the Alamodome that tickles Demolition Man's fancy -- including its name, which he takes to task because, well, its roof is technically not a dome.
Plenty of folks who have witnessed the breadth of grand waterways like the Colorado and Mississippi rivers take in the size of our downtown tributary and our everything-is-bigger-in-Texas hype and giggle. But would Demolition Man prefer we rid ourselves of the highly popular River Walk moniker and instead send our guests up The Creek?
These are name games. Every city plays them to their benefit. Does AlamoBarn sell?
What's not a game is Demolition Man's assessment that the Alamodome is an "economic folly." To some, those are fightin' words.
According to the city's figures, it cost $186 million to construct the Alamodome. And more than 13 million visitors have passed through its turnstiles to partake in a wide array of events.
That translates to roughly $14 bucks a head to cover the cost of building the Alamodome. I've covered my share multiple times with parking and beer alone. And that doesn't include the $70 binocular contribution I mistakenly made back in the mid '90s after a Houston Oilers exhibition game.
Sure, when it comes to annual operations and the bottom line, the Alamodome, according to Mayor Ed Garza, is losing roughly $2.5 million annually. Multiply that times four and that's roughly how much the convention center reportedly loses annually.
Do we level that, too? Do we tear down the airports and hospitals that are operating in the red?
Here's another number: Zero. That's how much the city owes on the Alamodome, which was paid off several years ago thanks to some forward-thinking financing.
What Demolition Man and his army of believers want you to do is pretend that certain things like facts don't matter because they only muddle up the message.
They want you to ignore the more than $20 million in direct economic impact generated by the Alamo Bowl in December. That game drew a sellout crowd and the highest TV rating among ESPN's 124 regular season and 20 post-season telecasts, according to the network.
Try putting a price on that for a city that is trying to sell itself to tourists and conventioneers across the country.
Demolition Man also wants you to put aside the independent study which revealed that the 2004 NCAA Men's Final Four played in the Alamodome generated a direct economic impact of $55 million for San Antonio.
At least two more Final Fours are slated for the 65,000-seat indoor stadium.
Baubles burst
Remember those NFL exhibition games and NBA All-Star Weekend, or the mega-star performers who had skipped San Antonio before the Alamodome was built?
Remember the record-breaking Olympic Festival and the sold-out monster truck shows?
Then there was the summer of 1999, when an entire city came together as one to celebrate the hoisting of the Spurs' first NBA championship banner. Without the Alamodome, the Spurs likely would have left San Antonio long before they finally settled in SBC Center.
Again, try to put a price on that.
So why does Demolition Man hope you forget or ignore all these things? Because if you don't, the column serves no purpose but to wrap another trout.
So the NFL dream is a long-shot. It's still a shot worth taking.
Not so, says Demolition Man, who brands that notion a "ridiculous fantasy" that will "never come true." He says Austin will land a team before San Antonio because it is smarter than us and does not build "useless baubles like the Alamodome."
He does not mention how Austin intends to land an NFL team without one of these useless baubles.
Knock down the dome and prop up the arts. That's the agenda.
Arts patrons over sports fans.
Merlot over Miller.
Picasso over the Packers.
Tuxedo affairs over tailgate parties.
There is a need for more arts support and infrastructure in this community. To ignore that is also silly. But when did it become an either/or game?
For many, the construction of the Alamodome was a chance for a city with a small-minded reputation to finally think big. That's why tearing it down demolishes much more than a building.
But there are dollar reasons, too, which support why it makes sense to keep and improve the Alamodome. Demolition Man doesn't want to hear that. For him and his troops, there remains a quest: To exact revenge for a battle they lost over a decade ago when voters exercised their democratic right and elected to help pay for a place millions have since enjoyed.
Heaven knows, writing a column that reels in the readers can be as tough as trying to catch fish in a dry pond. And no one lets us off the hook when we pen a stinker.
Maybe Demolition Man should do like any good angler when the old lure isn't working. Dump it and try a new one.
W. Scott Bailey is a staff writer for the San Antonio Business Journal. He can be contacted at [email protected].
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni...wscolumn1.html
I would have to agree... Greenburg is rather myopic on those issues. If he just moved to Austin and wrote for the Statesman, everybody would be happier.
That said, I do like his idea of mixed neighborhoods, where you have a variety of housing and shopping in an area, rather than just letting KB bulldoze a couple hundred acres and put up a thousand clone homes.
I agree with Greeenburg's idea of mixed homes downtown, the area needs lots of things for downtown residents, a supermarket for instance. But to tear down the Alamodome? No, although I feel the dome failed in it's primary goal (NFL), it has done alot for the community.
The Downtown area and the area just north of it is doing much better in the past few years. There are needs down there, but I think they will start to be met.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote