Archive: Responses to "Destination Bayfront could be coliseum conversion plan"

From the Caller-Times:

penname writes:
The idea for a public open space is the correct direction. And yes, it's good idea to market it as a destination. 
But, this plan was already proposed last week by another group!
There is no good reason that the Coliseum cannot remain as the focal point of an open space.
These guys want to claim that it's a 'public process' and grassroots ... but it's certainly not that. 
It's a deal between this group and the council. There were several council members in attendance tonight, but they weren't at the presentation last week.
We don't need fountains spewing water when we live in a windy, arid plain; we don't need ice rinks when we have 2-3 months of 105 heat index a year.
We need a public green space, with indoor facilities that could be developed inside the Coliseum. 
The building is so huge that it could include a mezzanine with offices and a ground floor area with food court, art shows, farmers' market and more.
To tear down a good building and later build another is nonsensical. 
Federal money is available to re-adapt the Coliseum as well as local citizen support. That should be part of any open space, park or destination plan.
January 25, 2010
8:17 p.m.

penname writes:
“We may just say we can do three or four elements and over time can do the rest" said McCampbell.
This is a very revealing statement.
These guys have worked hard for their agenda, but they don't have all details locked in any more than the other open public space group.
The Coliseum should not be demolished without a public vote.
If these guys have only one or two 'elements' ready, then they should leave the Coliseum for redevelopment.
January 26, 2010
6:21 a.m.

Shark8Leg writes:
Does "mixed-use" mean the space will be available for both taggers and drug users? Or does it mean that those who represent both red and blue will be able to use the space?
I have grown so weary of reading stories like this, literally year-after-year, that I barely take anything in them seriously any more.
Tear the damn thing down and plant grass. Then, mow the grass.
January 26, 2010
7:02 a.m.

nepdcc#401467 writes:
An open air pavilion as proposed by a local architect, George Clower, is the best idea because it could incorporate everything that this group is proposing,except the cost would be lower. the coliseum could be modified to SHADE---something we have little of downtown. Imagine shade in an area with concessions, picnic tables, and all kinds of activities. Modification of the building is less expensive than a demolition- which the city can't afford anyway. Demolition is wrong. Re-use is smart.
January 26, 2010
7:28 a.m.


BeverlysMom writes:
The Destination Bayfront plan would work nicely with the Clower plan for Coliseum reuse. All those town hall meetings showed the people of CC wanted reuse. Isn't it time the city council listened? Why should we spend money we don't have to destroy a perfectly good building?
January 26, 2010
7:58 a.m.

SouthTexas writes:
in response to penname:
“We may just say we can do three or four elements and over time can do the rest" said McCampbell.
This is a very revealing statement.
These guys have worked hard for their agenda, but they don't have all details locked in any more than the other open public space group.
The Coliseum should not be demolished without a public vote.
If these guys have only one or two 'elements' ready, then they should leave the Coliseum for redevelopment.
"but they don't have all details locked in any more than the other open public space group.
The Coliseum should not be demolished without a public vote."
There is absolutely no need for a vote on Memorial Coliseum. Essentially when you had a council election where the majority of those sitting there today indicated they would tear it down if that is what it took. Besides we elected them and to think that now we have to vote on items like that would make you wonder why not just run the city by taking polls on each issue.
Your comment about only having some elements ready says quite a bit about your post as well. If you wait till everything is perfect that property would be sitting there fifty years from now. There plan is about it being a public destination place which evolves over time to meet the changing desires of the community. Sounds like a reasonable and sound idea to me.
Perhaps you should post less and read more. Just a thought....
January 26, 2010
8:02 a.m.

Dude writes:
in response to penname:
“We may just say we can do three or four elements and over time can do the rest" said McCampbell.
This is a very revealing statement.
These guys have worked hard for their agenda, but they don't have all details locked in any more than the other open public space group.
The Coliseum should not be demolished without a public vote.
If these guys have only one or two 'elements' ready, then they should leave the Coliseum for redevelopment.
The public voted in the last election, giving a clear mandate to the Council and Mayor to keep their campaign promise and develop or demolish the Coliseum. Since no viable plan for keeping the building has emerged, it is time for the council to keep their promise! If they fail to do so, the people will vote them out in the next election and vote in someone with the fortitude to keep promises.
THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!!
RAZE THE HUT!!!!!
January 26, 2010
8:08 a.m.

Breezy writes:
What do you propose to do when the complaints come in due to bird droppings, litter/graffiti, and the gangs start hanging out there???? Taxpayers going to pay for the extra security required? Taxpayers going to pay for the cleanup and maintenance required (like they did with the current Coliseum)...you know how that turned out....Bad Idea IMO....Tear it down.....
January 26, 2010
8:09 a.m.

JavelinaWildcat writes:
in response to BeverlysMom:
The Destination Bayfront plan would work nicely with the Clower plan for Coliseum reuse. All those town hall meetings showed the people of CC wanted reuse. Isn't it time the city council listened? Why should we spend money we don't have to destroy a perfectly good building?
Again, the so called town halls were stacked by the committee to get the responses they wanted. Holding them at senior centers (easy access for the sleepy fishing village/don't change anything crowd) and at times most people who pay the taxes in this community could not get to them was on purpose. You always seem to forget to include in your "rationale", the people who sent in comments via on line were pretty much AGAINST keeping the building and some had their opinions skewed by the consultant . Those who said "tear it down, but if you are going to keep it , do (blank)." Those were counted as people wanting to keep it.
Please present a complete picture.
January 26, 2010
8:21 a.m.


JavelinaWildcat writes:
I am slowly warming up to the ideas presented here without the existing Memorial Collsieum. The trouble with any plan to keep parts of the Collsieum is their is not cost estimate in place and even if they come up with a rough one, it would be wise to suggest it might not be as cheap of project to accomplish as envisoned. A ton of engineering work would have to go into it and think about how much that will cost by the hour.
So that will leave us with an empty lot because as it's been shown through this process, any large structure being put in place or added to the existing building will be shot dowmn by the sleepy fishing village/anti everything crowd. So if these folks have a plan that makes the empty lot attractive and the people who own property arround the site really do have the drive to get their projects going, let's do it. If they would set up a maintence fund similar to the Houston project and essentialy take maintence out of the city's hands. That would GIANT STEP in the right direction.
January 26, 2010
8:22 a.m.

Joe_Dirt writes:
Finally something the common folk can get their arms around. But here come the save the colisuem people who want a trailer park on the bayfront. Tear that shack down and restore the land to look as nice as the view.
January 26, 2010
8:23 a.m.

jwood_unlv#447776 writes:
There is a reason why the coliseum should not be incorporated into a design like this. ITS UGLY!!!!!! Park spaces are supposed to be nice to look at. Why would we want that ugly hulking monstrosity ruining the view. Blow it up, remove rubble, do something with the land. I would prefer it be sold to the highest bidder and developed to add to the tax base. Parks require maintenance and money to keep them looking nice. Why not let someone else spend the money to keep it looking nice? Our city can't maintain the parks it already has and these people to want to add another to the list?
January 26, 2010
8:32 a.m.

Zensurfer01 writes:
This is one step closer to moving Shoreline drive away from the shoreline. The voters only approved money to relocate Shoreline north of the courthouse. Don't assume that we want the road diverted near the marina. The city council will be in for a real fight if that happens!
January 26, 2010
8:50 a.m.

JavelinaWildcat writes:
in response to Zensurfer01:
This is one step closer to moving Shoreline drive away from the shoreline. The voters only approved money to relocate Shoreline north of the courthouse. Don't assume that we want the road diverted near the marina. The city council will be in for a real fight if that happens!
The 2008 bond election approved the relocation of the roadway near the MC. The 2004 bond approved the current work near the ABC.
January 26, 2010
8:54 a.m.

ItsPat writes:
I was at this meeting last night. The group made it clear that whether the coliseum roof stays or goes is not even the tiniest concern of theirs--that's a decision the Council makes. (Actually, the Council already made that decision, but whatever). What this group proposes makes sense: Meet with people throughout the ENTIRE community--not just senior centers at 4pm, not just southside or the island--and get the Community to paint the picture of what they want. I'm glad I didn't show up at that meeting just to be showed a rendering and told "This is what you need to get behind." This group wants input and will pay for that process.
Clower wants us to support HIS plan--not a community vision. Everyone who's saying "the community wants this" or "the community wants that" is using purely anecdotal information. Destination Bayfront will gather hard evidence and widespread input from the entire community. They truly will be the only ones able to say "We know what the community wants." I say go for it.
January 26, 2010
8:58 a.m.


mattastic13#715386 writes:
in response to ItsPat:
I was at this meeting last night. The group made it clear that whether the coliseum roof stays or goes is not even the tiniest concern of theirs--that's a decision the Council makes. (Actually, the Council already made that decision, but whatever). What this group proposes makes sense: Meet with people throughout the ENTIRE community--not just senior centers at 4pm, not just southside or the island--and get the Community to paint the picture of what they want. I'm glad I didn't show up at that meeting just to be showed a rendering and told "This is what you need to get behind." This group wants input and will pay for that process.
Clower wants us to support HIS plan--not a community vision. Everyone who's saying "the community wants this" or "the community wants that" is using purely anecdotal information. Destination Bayfront will gather hard evidence and widespread input from the entire community. They truly will be the only ones able to say "We know what the community wants." I say go for it.
THANK YOU! I too was at the meeting and was impressed. I think it is a step in the right direction for the change that Corpus needs.
Houston was able to do it. Why can't Corpus? Well, other than the negative, pessimistic crowd?
January 26, 2010
8:59 a.m.

ItsPat writes:
in response to penname:
“We may just say we can do three or four elements and over time can do the rest" said McCampbell.
This is a very revealing statement.
These guys have worked hard for their agenda, but they don't have all details locked in any more than the other open public space group.
The Coliseum should not be demolished without a public vote.
If these guys have only one or two 'elements' ready, then they should leave the Coliseum for redevelopment.
Ok, you're completely missing the entire point of Destination Bayfront. They don't have to have details worked out because their purpose is to get the Community to paint this picture. The community input is what will determine the details of the proposal. Furthermore, they specifically said at the meeting that whether the Coliseum roof stays or goes is a non-issue for them. That's a Council issue. So again, you are putting out misleading information. They DO NOT need to have details because the very purpose of their group is to get the community to provide the details. They DO NOT have a dog in the fight of "to roof or not to roof" because they specifically said "That's a Council decision." For as often as you post, Penname, please get your facts straight.
January 26, 2010
9:03 a.m.

ChubnCC writes:
Here we go again! How long before they are able to get citizens onboard and excited by this proposal, only for the project to come crashing down? 
Something tells me that during the next Council elections, we will have candidates telling us that they are the ones that will finally make something happen.
What a joke!
January 26, 2010
9:07 a.m.

ItsPat writes:
I just hope Destination Bayfront sets up multiple community input meetings within each district in this city and then posts a schedule of these meetings so that everyone knows when and where they can provide their feedback. Maybe they can even work with the councilmembers in their specific districts and this community can actually work TOGETHER for something instead of just arguing the same issue over and over.
January 26, 2010
9:15 a.m.

TinyTimes writes:
Build It and the Will Come.
January 26, 2010
9:19 a.m.


Brioni writes:
Trey McCambell well thats an Al Jones move there thank you city council I wonder what their "Destination" is. We can't even maintain the parks we have now more less build another one and all these people on the panel are business people that you can bet will benefit from tax payer dollars. Why doesn't this city come out and say who are the ones really pulling the strings because its sure not the people. So much for "By the people for the people".
January 26, 2010
9:32 a.m.

ItsPat writes:
in response to Brioni:
Trey McCambell well thats an Al Jones move there thank you city council I wonder what their "Destination" is. We can't even maintain the parks we have now more less build another one and all these people on the panel are business people that you can bet will benefit from tax payer dollars. Why doesn't this city come out and say who are the ones really pulling the strings because its sure not the people. So much for "By the people for the people".
I used to have this kind of thinking to, but then I asked myself: Ok, when was the last time some "random" citizen pulled together a group of people and had a common plan or process? Seriously, it'd be headline news if some group of "unknowns" pulled out the stops and created a process for community input, found a consultant (and the funds) to help make that possible, etc, etc. It just hasn't happened. What I finally concluded is that it takes certain movers & shakers to get the ball rolling. Where the "unknowns" come in is the community input process. If you don't show up to the meetings or get involved, then you're just content to let others run the show. I got tired of sitting back, watching others run the show, and lamenting "oh where is the Voice of the People..." That voice should be me.
So I saw the notice for the meeting last night, and made it a priority to go. Now I kinda feel like a mover.... :)
January 26, 2010
9:35 a.m.


corpusnews writes:
in response to mattastic13#715386:
THANK YOU! I too was at the meeting and was impressed. I think it is a step in the right direction for the change that Corpus needs.
Houston was able to do it. Why can't Corpus? Well, other than the negative, pessimistic crowd?
Corpus can't do it because we do not have the money to do it! We cannot afford to maintain what we have, that is why this city looks like it does. And the city wanted to cut the Parks dept?
Until this city starts enforcing public codes on how this community keeps things, we will continue to be the little dirty city by the sea!
January 26, 2010
9:36 a.m.


emt6969 writes:
Well, here we go again. I am starting to believe people when they tell me our city government is always on the fence and no resolutions will ever be passed. Seriously....we should sell raffle tickets to raise money for the city, we do have a failing budget. The winner of the raffle will be able to fly from the NAS and bomb the "Destination", it will be a win win for everyone, the city makes money, the coliseum will be gone.
January 26, 2010
9:46 a.m.


mattastic13#715386 writes:
in response to corpusnews:
Corpus can't do it because we do not have the money to do it! We cannot afford to maintain what we have, that is why this city looks like it does. And the city wanted to cut the Parks dept?
Until this city starts enforcing public codes on how this community keeps things, we will continue to be the little dirty city by the sea!
True, but we also need something to attract new businesses to increase city revenue. Sometimes it takes a little to get a lot. Think of it as an investment in the future. I know that the students at the college are ready for a change and that without it, most will leave.
January 26, 2010
9:52 a.m.

CCTXCN writes:
To be honest I have had enough Please do something!
Make a park or tear it down I will remember the inability to Act come next election!
January 26, 2010
9:53 a.m.

cmm writes:
A brilliant idea!
To all the Negative Nellies, please check out their website. Follow the links from their site to view other waterfront cities and the before and after pics.
January 26, 2010
9:56 a.m.

TinyTimes writes:
How about a Taco Stand with the title: Henry Garrett Memorial Taco Stand?
January 26, 2010
10 a.m.


ItsPat writes:
Why is everyone telling the Council to DO something?? They already did when they voted unanimously to tear it down! The only people trying to stall this are those who want the Coliseum, or some part of it, reused. This is not the Council throwing up roadblocks. The Council has actually made a decision and stuck to it (whoa!!). Destination Bayfront is saying "Hey, the Council made a decision, now where do we go from here?" And that's why they got together to create a community input process.
For those of you who want to see something happen or see Council follow through, start pushing back on those who want to either have a public vote or stall the demo. Support the people you voted into office to make these decisions--they made a decision. The voted unanimously. The process is moving forward. Push back on those who want to stall everything again. They are NOT the majority. Let's unite and I prefer to unite on the side of action and progress--not stalling and roadblocks.
January 26, 2010
10:33 a.m.

Catwomen writes:
I like how they say "Destination Bayfront wouldn’t necessarily be as large, include the same elements or be as expensive as the Houston park." Meaning ITs gunna be cheap looking deterioate in a few months and be left totally forgotten.
January 26, 2010
11:05 a.m.

CharlieinCorpus writes:
in response to corpusnews:
Corpus can't do it because we do not have the money to do it! We cannot afford to maintain what we have, that is why this city looks like it does. And the city wanted to cut the Parks dept?
Until this city starts enforcing public codes on how this community keeps things, we will continue to be the little dirty city by the sea!
I was at the meeting last night and from what I understand is they aren't looking for the city to maintain this. They plan on getting a conservancy started to maintain this. This would not be your typical park that has an opening and closing time. They would have security, full time groundskeepers. Wow doesn't this sound so much better than any park in this town?
We need to let this group run and quit throwing the negatives. I hope all the folks that are negative right now will have to put their foot in their mouth cause they were all wrong. We can do this if we all stand behind it.
You have one solid supporter here! Give me something that I get to feel involved with, and then get to enjoy with my family!
January 26, 2010
11:19 a.m.

ItsPat writes:
in response to Catwomen:
I like how they say "Destination Bayfront wouldn’t necessarily be as large, include the same elements or be as expensive as the Houston park." Meaning ITs gunna be cheap looking deterioate in a few months and be left totally forgotten.
LOL, that's the spirit, Catwomen! Great input like this will truly help this City grow and prosper.
January 26, 2010
12:17 p.m.

jaylynn writes:
Let me get this straight. The Council has made a decision to tear MC down. (Yea!) This group wants to raise private dollars to help figure out what happens to the site in the future. They aren't selling one plan over another, nor are they criticizing other ideas. They are just trying to create a process to get all of ideas on the table and help figure out how to build a nice "public space" and maintain it in the future.
So why are so many folks complaining?
This sounds like a good idea. Positive thinking for a change. Way to go Destination Bayfront group!
January 26, 2010
2:38 p.m.

ridley writes:
"The public voted in the last election, giving a clear mandate to the Council and Mayor to keep their campaign promise and develop or demolish the Coliseum. Since no viable plan for keeping the building has emerged, it is time for the council to keep their promise! If they fail to do so, the people will vote them out in the next election and vote in someone with the fortitude to keep promises.THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!!"
1) Public input during the last council town hall meetings was ignored, it was clear folks only wanted the coliseum torn down if another use could not be found. 2) If a majority wanted it torn down Joe McComb would have succeeded in his petition drive. 3) NO COUNCIL HAS EVERY CONDUCTED A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DETERMINE A PUBLIC OPEN SPACE USE. 4) If the Destination Bayfront people were really nuetral they would propose a public process that would include the possibility of including part or all of the coliseum for a new use. 5) If they were nuetral they would be offering money to conduct a public process now not after the coliseum is demolished.
great idea lets take a structure that would cost 20 million to build, borrow 2 million to tear down and would only cost $250,000 to fix.
January 26, 2010
2:43 p.m.

penname writes:
Emperor's New Clothes.
They have no plans except to pay a NYC consultant.
Plenty of hype, but still no clothes.
January 26, 2010
3:14 p.m.

SouthTexas writes:
in response to penname:
Emperor's New Clothes.
They have no plans except to pay a NYC consultant.
Plenty of hype, but still no clothes.
Same old worn out words and still no substance to your posts. Being critical is easy but doing something takes some effort.
Thanks to this group for doing something and not following the path you tread down on a regular basis.
January 26, 2010
4:07 p.m.

corpusfriendly writes:
I was at the meeting last night also. I think this idea is just what Corpus and our community needs. There are businesses and individuals out there that would love to work together to do what is in the best interest of Corpus - and this is an excellent way to start! The old phrase "you can't please all the people, all the time" takes on a new meaning in Corpus. We need to do what's best for our city...not try to please everyone! Anyone that was here a long time ago remembers that the Mary Rhodes Pipeline - which has saved this city more than once - was a VERY unpopular decision at the time...that goes to show we need people who are forward thinkers, and who realize that they can't please everyone, and to just do what is best for our city. Good luck to Destination Bayfront!
January 26, 2010
4:11 p.m.

penname writes:
Quote from TV report on Destination Bayfront: "According to Hart, the city council privately saw the presentation back in November while talks with other developers were still underway."
Essentially, the swim club got taken for a ride, obviously wasted their time. Double-dealing. 
This whole deal smells.
January 26, 2010
4:14 p.m.

in response to ridley:
"The public voted in the last election, giving a clear mandate to the Council and Mayor to keep their campaign promise and develop or demolish the Coliseum. Since no viable plan for keeping the building has emerged, it is time for the council to keep their promise! If they fail to do so, the people will vote them out in the next election and vote in someone with the fortitude to keep promises.THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!!"
1) Public input during the last council town hall meetings was ignored, it was clear folks only wanted the coliseum torn down if another use could not be found. 2) If a majority wanted it torn down Joe McComb would have succeeded in his petition drive. 3) NO COUNCIL HAS EVERY CONDUCTED A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DETERMINE A PUBLIC OPEN SPACE USE. 4) If the Destination Bayfront people were really nuetral they would propose a public process that would include the possibility of including part or all of the coliseum for a new use. 5) If they were nuetral they would be offering money to conduct a public process now not after the coliseum is demolished.
great idea lets take a structure that would cost 20 million to build, borrow 2 million to tear down and would only cost $250,000 to fix.
Who cares if they're neutral? Once again, you completely miss the point. Destination Bayfront has continually stated that whether the coliseum stays or goes is a COUNCIL DECISION.. not their problem, not their business, not worth choosing sides over. The COUNCIL VOTED to tear down the coliseum. Destination Bayfront is simply moving forward from a decision the Council ALREADY MADE. Is this clear yet?
For the life of me, I can't understand why people are throwing dirt at this group that's just trying to move on since the Council ended discussions. This isn't their fault! You should've rallied your councilmember more if you wanted him/her to vote no on the tear it down portion. Except you didn't, because they ALL voted yes.
So we finally have a group emerge that's ready to move forward based on the new REALITY (which is No Coliseum) and you act like they should be refusing to accept the Council's decision so they can appear "neutral" in your opinion? Ridiculous.
January 26, 2010
6 p.m.


Pearl writes:
in response to ItsPat:
Who cares if they're neutral? Once again, you completely miss the point. Destination Bayfront has continually stated that whether the coliseum stays or goes is a COUNCIL DECISION.. not their problem, not their business, not worth choosing sides over. The COUNCIL VOTED to tear down the coliseum. Destination Bayfront is simply moving forward from a decision the Council ALREADY MADE. Is this clear yet?
For the life of me, I can't understand why people are throwing dirt at this group that's just trying to move on since the Council ended discussions. This isn't their fault! You should've rallied your councilmember more if you wanted him/her to vote no on the tear it down portion. Except you didn't, because they ALL voted yes.
So we finally have a group emerge that's ready to move forward based on the new REALITY (which is No Coliseum) and you act like they should be refusing to accept the Council's decision so they can appear "neutral" in your opinion? Ridiculous.
First, I've really enjoyed your posts, and your appreciation for the efforts of "Destination Bayfront" too. "Destination Bayfront" sounds like the best focus I've seen for sure. Just absolutely great. BUT.... I think you're giving the council entirely too much credit here.
In my opinion, they 'caved' in to failure based on the disgusting history of the issue. In general - The desperation to just get ANYTHING done to change the reality. With the MC gone - surrounding properties have a clear direction. That's what I think many of them NEED period.
I also believe there are some who just don't want anything that draws too many people at anytime. That would include ideas that could develop with the "Destination Bayfront" focus. The latter opinion comes from the many complaints over Bayfest, and the bad elements of public gatherings in the public parking area, and other areas close by.
From my view the demolision push is a dramatically desperate "all or nothing" finale SCREAM for relief here. People are just sick of THE issue, disgusted by the neglect, and constantly being told - No, no, no.
FINALLY here is an effort that deserves a HUGE - YES, YES, YES!!!!!
The "Destination Bayfront effort looks like the REAL DEAL when it comes to the MANY movers and shakers needed to work toward realistically livening up the bayfront. Just like they don't require a firm *with or without* guarantee regarding the open pavillion - I doubt it matters *with or without* the MC building either.
Personally, I am completely against the pavillion idea because of the outdoor elements that come with being on the bayfront. Not just for the sake of the exposed pavillion that will need constant maintenance, but for the PEOPLE to enjoy all of the time - No matter what the weather is like.
People need places to get out of the strong, and constant winds too - Not just the sun. What happens on the days that the wind in gusting 30, 40, 50mph??! It ALL shuts down???
I don't pretend to know the details regarding the power plays that have been feeding the constant struggle, but there is no doubt there have been plenty. The council vote strikes me as a power play that is not based on the bottom line facts.
The structural supports, walls included - Are still strong and sound. In order to turn the building into a multi-use facility - The cosmetics (neglected, and vandalized), and general interior changes anyway. No doubt the $2 million would go a long way on the roof too.
There is no reason the "Destination Bayfront" focus cannot include an indoor area that supports itself financially.
January 26, 2010
6:24 p.m.


Maximuss writes:
I heard about this on Lago, went to the website. Anyone who checks it out will see they’ve got a winner here. So why are people like ‘penname’ already against it?
‘Penname’ says there are two groups that are both pursuing public input. He says the other group gave the same plan last week. The other group includes the coliseum. Destination says it will work with whatever council decides on the coliseum. So penname is pro-coliseum.
Penname says a public process is correct, then says “'We need a public green space, with indoor facilities that could be developed inside the Coliseum.” Where did the public process go? If you’re telling us what should go there, there’s no process. Destination is suggesting that the public decide what goes there; you’re telling us what should go there. In the other destination article, penname says “This group has no interest in what the public wants.” Sorry, penname. You don’t.
Penname says that council was at the Destination meeting but not the other groups meeting so there must be a council conspiracy or hidden deal. The KRIS news report video shows a very full room at the Destination meeting with 25-30 at the other groups’ meeting last week. Were the other 100 people in the room at Destination in on the conspiracy too? Remember on the day council voted for the swim center, the first motion that day (that failed) was to demolish the coliseum and put in a Discovery Green-type park so for backroom dealers they did a poor job. Penname's conspiracy theory goes out the window.
Penname says "they don't have all details locked in any more than the other open public space group," endorses the other group and then says Destination is 'Emporers New Clothes'. If they have the same level of detail ‘locked in’ then how is the other group not Emporers new clothes also? All of the Destination materials say out loud that they don't have details locked down on purpose, but remember penname has all the details locked down: “We need a public green space, with indoor facilities that could be developed inside the Coliseum.” If the public has come up with penname’s plan, show us how that happened?
There must be a group of pro coliseum people, penname included, who are throwing every bit of crazy at Destination to see what sticks. Luckily there are people who can think for themselves, analyze the subtext of the comments and point it all out here.
Penname, if there’s another group why can’t that group execute? If the public wants a vote on what the coliseum should be, then you will have no problems making that happen. Destination Bayfront has no comment on your group. Why are you commenting so much on them? Quit mudsling and mobilize. If you have a better idea, it will engage the public and take hold.
What you’re going to find is that with people like you in that group, no one else will want to be in it. Take penname’s posts with a grain of salt. Destination Bayfront, what are the next steps? How can I help?