JG Excerpt:It’s not a community facility any more, bub. When you sign that contract, you’ve agreed to become the primary user with rights that allow you to deny community use.
Voskuil suggested that Wisconsin Hockey Partners pay for some of the needed capital improvements. “I’m not sure it’s fair to ask me or my partners to fix that,” he said. “That’s a 35-year-old building,” he said. It’s a community facility that needs improvement, he said.
JG Excerpt:But that’s exactly what you agreed to. You’ve agreed to play in the facility “as it is.” You have found the condition of the “old barn” acceptable enough to play a junior hockey team in. If something breaks and the city can’t afford repairs or won’t – what’s it worth to YOU to fix. Or does everyone just walk away?
“That would be for us, like, buying an old house that has a leaky roof, crumbling foundations and windows that are 80 years old. I don’t know why we would do that.”
Council member Voskuil raised several good questions that eventually went to waste. She (and others) accepted those answers from McCoshen and then betrayed her duty to the city by voting “Yes.” In retrospect, I don't know why she asked them in the first place. Voskuil also seemed less offended by the contract than she was of some users of the ice arena when they referred to a room in the facility as a “party” room. She then injected semantics by suggesting it's best described as a “community” room.
JG Excerpt:The Gazette described McCoshen's response as follows.
Council members asked why the city should forego office rent if the team loses money, per the contract. McDonald said the team would get a break if it doesn’t do well but the city wouldn’t reap better benefits if the team succeeds. He asked for 10 percent of the gross profits from ticket and beer sales.
JG Excerpt:That wasn’t how McCoshen answered the profit sharing question. His response was……
McCoshen said it is unclear how profitable the team will be. He said he has been talking to the corporations that would sponsor the team. He said he’s had some good luck but also has been met with hesitation.
”You’re applying a standard to us that doesn’t apply to any business in town”A standard that doesn’t apply? You mean like if your business doesn’t do so well, we’ll waive the rent? No matter, McDonald voted for the agreement, beer sales and all and then turns around and implies his vote now might not reflect his vote on the liquor commission for the beer license? If McDonald had any problems with the beer, he should've voted "no" on this contract now.
With this group in city hall, I'm surprised McCoshen wasn't lobbying to build a new ice rink at this time, because after all, what does he care? It's not on his dime.
4 comments:
Not only did the city council fail miserably, but all those groups that use the ice arena surrendered their position. In any other town they would have held a pitch-fork rally, but not in Janesville. They deserve to lose access to the arena.
By shutting down open negotiations, Steeber acted as if this was a competitive bidding process. Like other towns or teams were fighting for this deal. Yet, look what kind of a lease agreement closed negotiations with the new manager brought us. Levitt placed any blame for the contract on negotiations before it got here, but he's been involved since December and signed his name to it. Who wrote that contract? It looks like it was pulled out of 'attorneys for dummies.'
Harp, I too thought the user groups would have fought for the arena. Instead, they proved how little the ice means to them. So why should anyone fight to keep it an ice arena? For a private investment firm who don't think it's profitable to build there own?
anonymous, that's a great question! Who really wrote that contract? Does anybody know?
McDonald should recuse from the liquor license committee on the WHP's application.
Post a Comment