Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Something Fishy About Louisville Riverfront Arena Proposal

By Theresa Fritz Camoriano

As I have listened to the arguments about where to locate a proposed sports arena in Louisville, I have begun to smell something very fishy along the riverfront.  The LG&E site, across the street from the Ohio River, would cost $114 million dollars more than the water company site, which is three blocks farther south, largely because it would require moving the LG&E electric transmission station across a street – roughly 30 yards, which would cost over $63 million.  It also would require building a flood wall, since it is in the flood plain.  The Arena Authority (a group of people appointed by the governor and mayor) has recommended the much more expensive LG&E site, but the reasons that have been given so far just do not hold water. 

The Democrat-controlled Kentucky House of Representatives tried to tie state funding of the arena to the less expensive water company site, but the Senate Republicans refused to allow any restrictions on the $75 million that will be chipped in by the state toward the project. What is driving the Republicans to push for the LG&E site?

The arguments that have been presented so far have been the following:

1.                  The University of Louisville will refuse to play in an arena if it is not located on the water front, because it will not help with the recruiting of players.  (A bunch of college basketball players would not want to play in a beautiful new arena because it is four blocks away from the river rather than one block away?  Doesn’t sound very plausible, does it, especially since they would not even be able to see the outdoors from inside the arena.)

2.                  The study of the water company site was done too quickly (in time for the legislature to consider it), so it cannot be as good as the study of the LG&E site, which took longer.  (If there were flaws in the study, they should be pointed out, but doing the study quickly and efficiently in time to be considered by the state legislature cannot be considered to be a flaw.)

3.                  The LG&E transmission station is an eyesore that will be eliminated if the arena is located there.  (It should be noted that the eyesore would simply be moved across the street at a cost of over $63 million; it would not be eliminated.  In any event, it would be far less expensive to build a false front to hide the eyesore than to relocate the transmission station.) 

4.                  If the arena is not put at the LG&E site, that site will never be developed. (So what?  Isn’t the LG&E station a form of development?  Is it the responsibility of the taxpayers to make sure that every piece of downtown property is developed to the satisfaction of some elitist, visionary planner no matter what the cost?)

5.                  The arena needs to be on the riverfront to improve the appearance of the city’s skyline.  (Wouldn’t an arena three blocks away have about the same effect on the skyline?)

In considering all those arguments, it is clear that they cannot be the real reason the Republicans and the Arena Authority are pushing for the LG&E site, so what is the real reason that would justify increasing the cost of an arena by one-third? 

It should be noted that, when the Arena Authority (an unelected group of people unaccountable to the taxpayers) is spending other people’s money, it is not inclined to consider the cost as it would if it were spending its own money, so, for the people in the Arena Authority, the $114 million difference in cost is insignificant; it’s just another burden on the taxpayers that will “pay for itself”.   Thus, the people on the Arena Authority are much more likely to make a decision based on what makes their friends happy rather than on what makes economic sense.  So who are their friends, and why would the LG&E site make them happier than the water company site? 

Is the motivation for the selection of the LG&E site primarily egos?  Do the President of the University of Louisville and the athletic director want to have luxurious offices on the riverfront?  Or is the motivation a desire to help LG&E modernize its facilities at taxpayer expense?  Or is the motivation a desire to please the managing editor of The Courier-Journal, who came up with the idea for the LG&E site in the first place?  It should be noted that The Courier-Journal has not provided accurate, unbiased coverage of the site selection considerations.  For example, it has not explained that the LG&E eyesore would simply be moved across the street.  (Only the Lexington Herald-Leader has provided somewhat balanced coverage of the issue.)

I do not know the real motivation behind this boondoggle, but it appears that the real reasons have not been told, since the reasons that have been given so far simply do not hold water.  The use of an unaccountable, appointed board to make the decision as a way to try to insulate the governor, mayor, Kentucky legislature, and other elected officials from the decision is very sneaky.  The taxpayers and the members of the Louisville Metro Council should not stand for it.  When Reginald Meeks, a Democrat member of the Kentucky House of Representatives from Louisville was asked about the situation he said, “You can put a hat on it. You can put lipstick on it. You can put ballet shoes on it, but this does not pass the smell test." 

This situation is very fishy, and the elected officials should be held accountable.  The Louisville Metro Council should refuse to put one penny of taxpayer money on the line for a site that would pour over $114 million into the river.  The fix may be in, but it is not too late for elected officials to do their jobs and represent the taxpayers.

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN