Left In Lowell

Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs

 
Lowell 2009 Campaign Info
 
LiL Council Video Questionnaires
 

January 30, 2009

The Arena saga continues

by at 8:18 am.

In yesterday’s Sun, Jenn Myers has the latest episode in the saga of The Chancellor wants/does not want/wants the Tsongas Arena. When we last left the Arena issue, the City Council told the City Manager to re-engage U. Mass Lowell Chancellor Marty Meehan and State Senator Steve Panagiatakos in discuss the future of the Tsongas Arena.

I am confused. I just watched parts of the November 3rd Sub-Committee (here is the link to the LTC streaming video) meeting when Chancellor Meehan addressed the full City Council. It is still not clear to me, what was the initial motivating factor that prompted the University to want to take over the Arena? Was it that they wanted to expand their hockey program and the Arena is not in a condition that would allow that to happen? Is that it?

Or maybe it had to do with the U. Mass Board of Trustees July 2007 decision to allow U. Mass Lowell Hockey to continue. Or maybe it has to do with manifest destiny (snark!).

In his appearance at the abovementioned CC meeting, the Chancellor mentioned that the State did not want to pour money to renovate the Arena but in his November 21st letter to U. Mass President Jack Wilson, Chancellor Meehan stated that the “Governor’s Office has indicated that it would support a transfer of ownership to the University.”

As Meyers points out the University will take over the Arena and pay the City $1 and $800,000 for the adjacent land and a parcel of land near the U. Mass Boathouse. Where is the University going to get $800,000?

And of course the City gets to keep the privilege of paying off the debt service on the Arena, around $2 million and let’s not forget the legal headache of breaking the lease with the Devils. That should cost us a few pennies. Yes, the City will not have to subsidize the operating costs of the Arena but in 2 years when the Devils leave we can do whatever we want with that place and try to begin to recoup our investment. Why don’t we think we can succeed? That’s what bothers me the most; we do not think we can do it so we want the Chancellor to come to our rescue.

And even if we wanted to get rid of the Arena, is the State in a financial position to allow one of its universities to embark on this type of a venture which has building a practice rink as one of its components?

10 Responses to “The Arena saga continues”

  1. Mr. Lynne Says:

    I, for one, am getting tired of the games. Figure out what the best position for the city is and lets get that started. Marty’s waffling should be taken at face value… an indication that you may not want to continue negotiating with the guy. If hockey is a yoke around the arena’s financial potential (UML or otherwise) then we need to figure out how to get a hockey divorce and start that process. I wonder just how bad the CC is undercutting the city’s negotiating position in redirecting the CM to talk to UML in what could be a fruitless exercise. I hope they are not looking for brownie points from Marty (or Campy) because it really looks like Marty is just looking out for Marty and the city’s interests probably diverge from that.

  2. waittilnextyr Says:

    The arena is a good asset for the City, but it still have value to the community if it were owned by the University, so that in itself is not a major issue.

    The City owns the debt, approximately $2M as Mimi indicates, and that is costing the City about $350K per year until it is retired. The UML “offer” does not eliminate that.

    But the City is incurring about $1M in annual losses beyond that debt payment. The Arena commission is taking some action to reduce that, but it will still be a substatntial loss that the taxpayers are covering.

    The Devils lease is part of the problem, and one that may not be easily severed. However, rather than the City incurring penalties by breaking that lease, it should be transferred with the ownership change.

    The adjacent land has been valued at about $800K (net of clean-up costs) by the City, and apparently UML. However, the ultimate use of the land could be beneficial to the City’s tax base, and therefore there is some risk in selling it to UML, although UML has apparently would give the City some say in its use, and ensure it was taxable property.

    The land near the river is of questionable value to the City. Although UML values the land at $480K, it could be more of a liability to the City, as it would likely expand the maintenance tasks of the Parks Department. On balance, it does not seem to be a major player in the deal.

    The City really shouldn’t be in the business of arenas and ballparks, except to ensure a quality attraction is available to its citizens and area residents. That can still be obtained with UML ownership, and UML has a partial need for the facilities and has a more extensive financial backing to support them. If a good deal can be worked out it should be in the best interests of both the City and the University.

  3. Mr. Lynne Says:

    “…apparently would give the City some say in its use…”

    ’some say’ should be ‘binding in the transfer, complete with penalties’. If the sale of the land is made attractive by some speculated future behavior of UML, we’d better get it in writing and cover ourselves if they don’t follow through.

    “…and UML has a partial need…”

    I’m not convinced this would be a good deal for UML either. The pressure to keep it as a hockey venue would be great, and I think it’s likely to be a money sink if they do so. Also, any ‘benefit’ to the community would also be mitigated by it’s use by UML hockey. Add to this the problem of holding any of the current debt, and I think this is a loser for UML as well. I guess I could be reassured if UML proposed a business plan for the property complete with numbers that could be examined in detail (is there such a document that the trustees are reviewing?). I’m just having a hard time picturing how they are going to operate the arena in enough of a ‘different way’ to turn $1M in operating loss into some kind of profit.

  4. Eleanor Rigby Says:

    Looking down the road, the UMass board of trustees tried to boot UMass Lowell’s hockey team out of Hockey East already. Meehan had to come in and make promises in order to keep the team in the league.

    What is to prevent the trustees from eliminating UMass Lowell hockey altogether making the UMass Amherst team the primary team in the system with the best quality players? (Umass Lowell lost it’s football team and its basketball squad is certainly not to be mentioned in the same breath as UMass Amherst)

    If that were to happen then what happens to the arena? Does UMass Lowell sell it to a private entity to do with what they will with no imput from the city beyond the planning and zoning boards?

  5. Merrimack River Rat Says:

    OFF TOPIC!

    Sorry, but I checked the LTC site and this wasn’t an option. I read that the Flood subcommittee was meeting this afternoon at 2 (good time for the public…NOT!) to deal with Bud Caulfield’s experience of being cursed at on the O’Donnell bridge while crews were clearing debris from in front of the gate house.

    Anyone go to it or know what was said/happened? As I said the meeting was not one that appeared on the LTC website.

  6. Mimi Says:

    River Rat:

    LTC is currently upgrading its equipment and they are a bit late in updating its streaming video. I do not know if that particular sub-committee meeting was filmed. Unless the LTC staff is informed of a particular meeting, they will not know to come and film.

  7. Capt.Paul Says:

    Yes it was filmed and I did attened. Tony Volpe of Enel was to attend but backed out at the last min. They do not like public forum’s. The Sun and the Eagle Tribune did a good job covering the meeting.

  8. daniel Says:

    Does anyone know the status of that unsolicited bid for the parcel of land right next to the arena? It is interesting that there seems not to be a follow-up on that news. Does anyone “in the know” know if that bid was substantial both in seriousness and cash?

  9. middle roader Says:

    Daniel, I think the City Council put the kabosh on seeing how serious the bid was since Marty wants that land thrown into the Arena deal. Makes me wonder who the Council is working for.

  10. Lynne Says:

    Middle roader: doesn’t seem like they are working for the taxpayers…does it?

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

[powered by WordPress.]

If you are not on Twitter and want to follow our feed on Facebook, click "Like" for our FB page.
follow me on Twitter

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

January 2009
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Other:

Email us!

(replace spaces, ['s, symbols)
Lynne | Mimi

LiL Fundraising for Elizabeth Warren!

Goal Thermometer

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Media in Lowell

Media in MA

Other Daily Reads

Politics Online

Progressive Local Orgs

Snark and politics

The Arts in Lowell

42 queries. 0.438 seconds