News of the Arroyo
Title: | Answers to Rose Bowl-NFL issues |
Subtitle: | |
Date: | 2005-05-28 |
Summary: | May 28, 2005 - Former Pasadena city manager Don McIntyre on behalf or the Friends of the Rose Bowl offers this response to a recent Star News editorial on the environmental impacts of an NFL team in the Rose Bowl. |
Author: | Don McIntyre |
Publication: | Pasadena Star News |
Content: | Friday, May 27, 2005 - Friends of the Rose Bowl applaud you for carefully examining the environmental study (EIR) prepared for the Rose Bowl NFL proposal. We believe careful readers will find clear and compelling answers to the dichotomies perceived in your recent editorial (\"Rose Bowl\'s dichotomies,\" Our View, May 20). The editorial suggests that the long-term objectives set forth in the environmental study have not been met by the findings of the study itself. We strongly disagree and here are some reasons: - Long Term Viability. The NFL Rose Bowl proposal is being considered for one reason and one reason only: \"to facilitate the economic viability of Rose Bowl.\" In fact, this is the stated objective of the project, as described in the environmental study. The editorial noted that the Rose Bowl already has three long-term tenants. True. But that is precisely the problem. The existing long-term tenants do not provide for the economic viability of the Rose Bowl. Without an additional long-term tenant we are in serious trouble. The Rose Bowl currently loses $2 million per year and will soon surpass $3 million. And that doesn\'t even take into account the cost of necessary modernization that could easily surpass $100 million. Unfortunately, this dismal situation includes all the revenues from the Rose Bowl\'s existing tenants: UCLA (and its new 20-year lease), the Tournament of Roses and the flea market. That is the only reason why the Rose Bowl Operating Company (RBOC) has been looking at the NFL opportunity -- to find a long-term tenant that can provide for economic viability. - Improve traffic and parking conditions. The editorial suggested that bringing in an NFL team is not the way to improve traffic and parking in the Arroyo. But a careful reading of the environmental document makes it perfectly clear that, in fact, the NFL proposal does improve the parking and traffic situation for large events at the Rose Bowl. The capacity of the stadium itself is reduced by 25,000 seats and the number of parking spaces is reduced by 3,000. This means less attendance, less cars, less traffic and less parking. Are traffic impacts unavoidable and not able to be fully mitigated? Yes, of course they are --and that is already the case. But the NFL proposal could reduce the impacts that we currently live with. Now, it is true that there would be 10 to 13 more events overall. But there will have to be more events in any scenario, unless Pasadena taxpayers are prepared to subsidize the Bowl in perpetuity -- if not the NFL, then Guns and Roses, the Rolling Stones or the Billy Graham Crusade, plus nine or 10 more every year. The Rose Bowl is what it always has been -- a stadium. It\'s best, most efficient, and least disruptive use always has been and will remain as a football stadium that relies on people attending events and paying admission in order to collect the revenues to pay for its maintenance and upkeep. - The setting and integrity of the Arroyo Seco. There will be reduced hardscape, and increased landscape. Unsightly out-buildings will be removed and relocated, replaced with attractive walkways, grassy areas and lush plantings, making for a far more appealing and attractive Rose Bowl and Arroyo setting. Further, because the NFL proposal ends the subsidy from Brookside Golf Course, it frees-up over $2 million each year to be spent on what those revenues are supposed to be dedicated to: improving the Arroyo Seco. - Recreational opportunities. While the editorial said thousands of people will lose some recreational opportunity for 10-13 days every year, let\'s remember that for over 330 days a year those recreational opportunities can be improved and expanded. Certainly the project will yield additional funds for our schools, and perhaps revenues to support joint school/city use of recreational facilities. These are the trade-offs to be considered. - Environmental impacts. Yes, the current and ongoing use of the Rose Bowl has unavoidable and unmitigated impacts. Always has, always will. But the NFL proposal can reduce attendance, traffic, and parking for big events. It can improve and beautify the Arroyo. Noise and lighting impacts can be reduced. These are positive findings, not negative. As for any potential loss of historic landmark status, let\'s be clear. The Bowl has gone through many major renovations in its 83 years. It is currently unrecognizable from the original u-shaped facility with less than half of current capacity. It was radically changed just a dozen years ago in a way few would call aesthetically pleasing. These necessary changes haven\'t made the Rose Bowl any less historic or cost its landmark status. Modernization of the stadium for the NFL project need not do so, either. - Economic benefit. Finally, it is surprising your editorial so lightly discounts over $50 million dollars of economic benefit directly to Pasadena, with an increase of over $20 million in earnings for Pasadena households. These gains would be a direct result of the NFL Rose Bowl\'s renovation and are over and above the dramatic improvement in the city\'s financial condition -- turning an annual loss of $3 million into an annual gain of a million or more. Just as important, for the entire region, the benefits are many times greater. We are talking about an infusion regionally of almost $500 million dollars with the project itself, and another $70 million each year in increased economic activity throughout the region. A Super Bowl adds an additional $300 million of economic opportunity. The only reason the NFL proposal is being considered is that the Rose Bowl\'s future is in serious jeopardy without it. Without an additional long-term tenant, even our current tenants may eventually be forced to leave. And that could jeopardize the Rose Bowl\'s very existence. The NFL is the only long-term tenant that can solve these problems, and that opportunity will not come our way again. Clearly Pasadena would be very foolish to toss away this opportunity before we know what the shape of a final deal might look like. -- Don McIntyre, former Pasadena city manager, is the executive director of Friends of the Rose Bowl. |
Url: |