Left In Lowell

Are You Prepared To Give Away the Store?

33 Responses to “Are You Prepared To Give Away the Store?”

1. Christopher Says:
   March 30th, 2009 at 11:18 am

   I would suggest calling the Councilors at their City Hall offices. Calling at home strikes me as intrusive (which may explain the unlisted numbers of two of the Councilors).

2. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   March 30th, 2009 at 11:21 am

   This has been a done deal since Armand Mercier first proposed it. It was never a matter of if, but when.

   I read PA Sports report and had to laugh when I read the column. The report outlines exactly how the arena can shed the deficit, but it does make some giant assumptions. The biggest is there are people in place willing to stand up and work to make it happen. Much easier to just give it away.

   Two things struck me about the report one of which was mentioned in the Sun. The Sun has not problem with the fact that the Arena commission can’t abide by the law and keep executive session secret. They as much said so in Sunday’s Column.

   The other thing that struck me that has not appeared in the paper. On the VERY FIRST PAGE of the executive summary, one of the four big problems identified regarding lack of event bookings…..

   > A relatively uninvolved Lowell media (TV, radio and print) in the active promotion of events.

   Funny how Campy, O’Neil and Wallace aren’t taking responsibility for that, heh? lol

3. Lynne Says:
   March 30th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

   Well, if their office numbers were published, sure. But in the past, people have always used home numbers. Plus, for some places of employ for these Councilors, constituent calls are probably not welcome, or a waste of taxpayer time (in the case of those who are employed by the state or federal government).

   People call the city councilors at home all the time, Christopher.

4. Lynne Says:
   March 30th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

   Oh and interesting points Eleanor…though if enough people are ticked off about this, I don’t think it has to be a “done deal.”

   LOL at the irony of your last item, though.

5. James Says:
   March 30th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

   I think this is just based on anti-Meehan/anti-city council opinion. If, as you assert, the arena isn’t going to be profitable anytime soon, why isn’t it advantageous for the city to stop footing the bill? And the state/university paid for more of the arena’s construction initially than the city itself, so its not like the city fully funded it by itself. They’ve operated it since its been open and they haven’t done a very good job. Giving the sweetheart deal to the Devils is a huge part of that.

   I admit i come from this as both an alum of UMass Lowell and a supporter of UML hockey, so I think it is essential for the River Hawks to own their own arena. They are the only team in Hockey East that doesn’t. All those other universities don’t seem to have a problem owning their own building. Owning the arena will help prevent another situation like what arose with Stephen Tocco. And I think having the team suceed and at least be healthy is important to the university as a whole because it helps gives UMass Lowell an identity separate from Amherst. Do you know that out of state tuition paid to UML goes back to the general fund while UMass Amherst gets to keep that money? I don’t think its advantageous for the city for Lowell to be just a satellite campus of Amherst.

   I also disagree with the idea that Marty Meehan has been such an awful chancellor. I think he’s done what he was hired to do. Improve the public standing of the university. He wasn’t hired as an academic, so why are people expecting that? But his efforts have certainly done a good job at growing the university’s promotion and identity. So what if he is a self-promoter at the same time? Thats what he was hired for. To be the public face. I’m sure the UMass trustees also figure he will eventually move on. I haven’t seen any example of where Marty has put himself above the University. He’s out there for himself too, thats for sure, but I don’t see an example of how he’s been screwing the University over for his own ego. I also don’t see how this arena deal is doing that.

   But I also am a Lowell resident and obviously I don’t want a deal that is too disadvantageous to the city. So I prefer to see solid reporting on the actual parameters rather than just “word on the street.” That kind of reporting belongs in “The Column.” I thought the city would be getting any profits from the university to pay down their arena debt? I admit there are a lot of important details, but at the end of the day, transferring ownership is a win-win.

6. James Says:
   March 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm

   Also the university’s current “sweetheart deal” was very specifically temporary and just came about in the last two years after we almost lost the team.

7. Mimi Says:
   March 30th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

   Home Phone Numbers:

   CC R. Elliott 978.937.8165; CC K. Broderick 978.937.0545.

8. Bob Says:
   March 30th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

   Lynne,

   The University does not have a sweetheart deal … they have a twenty year lease that is favorable to the University because the State and University paid $24 million to build the Tsongas Arena.

9. Anonymous Says:
   March 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm

   James- It’s hard to speak reason to these hysterical people. But I agree with you. The state (the owner of the university) put $24 million into the construction of this facility and the city put in $4 million. I am a Lowell taxpayer but also a state taxpayer. The City of Lowell screwed this thing up from the get go beginning with oversight of construction and cutting corners to the point that the Tsongas Arena CANNOT compete for all of the acts that the arena supposedly could book if it weren’t for hockey. If the Devils and the UML team disappeared tomorrow- the arena still could not book these shoes……..And this deal being discussed on the street? It was hashed out almost a year ago but certain parties attempted to reneg on the deal.

10. Lynne Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    And the city paid nothing? Also, the city has to deal with the deficit. So yes, it’s a sweetheart deal right now, as everyone gets to share in profit (if such a thing existed with the Arena) but only the city has to cover the deficit.

    James: Because a better deal could be had. If the U really needed this land/Arena, why does the city just have to hand it over? It’s a bad deal for taxpayers because there’s NO chance to recoup the costs. If the city were able to turn the use of the land next door to the advantage of the Arena and the City (I’ve heard some interesting ideas) then we might be able to make the Arena profitable. Not going to happen if UML takes over both - as the University probably will do something else with that land, not use it synergistically to try and make the Arena work better.

    The Devils deal was a raw one and under the previous management and political environment. Such a deal would not have been made today, in my opinion. We said it was a raw deal at the time and we all knew we were going to be on the hook for it. But that deal is not forever and can be renegotiated in the future.

    Now is THE wrong time to “own” anything new for the U! Again, is the U going to cut a few teacher positions to pay for it? Is there even a plan for this?? It seems ill timed and ill-thought-out.

    “But his efforts have certainly done a good job at growing the university’s promotion and identity.”

    That is severely debatable. Many people I talk to do NOT think the U’s standing in the community has gotten better, but rather, a lot worse. As someone I talked to put it, we’ve been set back a decade on the programs and outreach that forged connections between UML and Lowell.

    “I haven’t seen any example of where Marty has put himself above the University.”

    Also debatable.

    Hey, I used to defend Marty all the time too, when people accused him of crass opportunism. No more of that, not any more, after everything that’s happened. I’m sick of it. The air is thick with cronyism on this, it’s very obvious to anyone who has followed this story.

    “I thought the city would be getting any profits from the university to pay down their arena debt?”

    Really? What profits? UML would get the Arena for free if Marty gets his way (and I doubt VERY much if UML would be allowed to pay for it up front, the UMass system people would kibosh that real quick). And where’s the UML plan to make the Arena profitable? I don’t see them. There is, however, a possible plan on the city’s side if we’re still stuck with it. I don’t want to be stuck with it, but I don’t want to be screwed by being left holding the bag, either.

11. Anonymous Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

    Lynne- “We’ve been set back a decade…….” Who is WE??? Lowell taxpayers do not own the university nor de “we” have any say in its operation, agenda, mission, etc….Furthermore, the biggest set back for the university came when it was added to the UMass system. There were objections to that plan as it would become exactly what it is - as James put it - a satellite campus. I think the new chancellor recognizes that and will be a positive influence in that area. Securing UML hockey (which was huge here back in the 70s-80s) is one step in that direction.

12. middle roader Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    I have no problem with transferring the Arena to UML as long as it isn’t for free. The City and UML put up similar amounts for it and the state gave $20 million to the project because it was both City and University. Let’s have the City get something for its invstment. Either $$$ or a lease like the University has had.

    As for the land next to the arena. I don’t see why the City should be giving that up to the University. It should be sold on the open market to get the best deal for the City. And it should be sold with some sense of how it will be developed for maximum benefit for Lowell. Not sure if Meehan is thinking of that as his top priority.

13. Tom Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    Has anyone considered renovating the Arena? It could use more seats and a higher roof. That way it could attract larger concert crowds and perhaps arena football.

14. Prince Charming Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    Paul Tsongas always had a knack for spending other people’s money. Lowell is not a hockey town. It never was and never will be. We were promised family shows, skating events, and concerts that didn’t make your ears bleed. Never happened. In my opinion the management group has never done as promised despite all the CC’s “wonnerful job done by SMG”. The reputation is out there. The economy has forced entertainers to curtail their touring. The state paid 24 mil to build it and we should be happy that they want it back. Someone is offering to take a million dollar a year albatross from around our necks and we should be grateful.

15. Shawn Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    Seems to me the city is looking to the future here. Hudson is planning a huge complex just north of the border that this arena will not be able to compete with.
    Let the state take this elephant off your backs, suck it up regarding the few years of debt you’ve built up, and let Marty deal with the problem.
    OH, and if he has any events there… hopefully we won’t tax em to the point where they’ll never return to Lowell.
    The thing has been nothing but a problem since it was built.
    Once again, running an entertainment complex is not a role belonging to a political organization.

16. Mr. Lynne Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    It seems to me that the site’s profitability problems stem from it’s being hamstrung on the event’s it can host as a result of the usage contracts it has. Build a hotel next to the arena and you have an instant convention center, probably cheaper than Manchester or Boston.

    I think selling is a bad option if there are future revenues available if the usage issues can get worked out. Getting rid of it now is an option if you absolutely have to cut your losses and can’t hold onto the asset. Such an arrangement would be taking on the chin, which we shouldn’t do unless we have to. If we’re on the hook for the debt in the deal, where’s the upside that would make it ok to take one on the chin?

17. Shawn Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    Isn’t there a hotel less than 1/2 mile down the street that is also crashing and burning?
    Why would another move into the same downtown? If you can’t fill one, how will you fill two.. and would building another one just shut down that other business in the middle of the city?

18. Lynne Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    “Who is WE?” We, in this case, is the University and its relationship and relevance with the community. There is a LOT of lamenting (from various sectors within UML) about the programs which were cut this year, including good work that was built up in many areas, like economic development, media (Sunrise), etc, which meant that the community understood what was happening at the U and vice versa. This is good for the University, providing opportunities for the students they wouldn’t otherwise have.

    I went to a rural university which stayed “self sufficient” and closed off because, honestly, it had no other choice, there wasn’t much community to link into. Having a U in a city like this makes for some very unique opportunities which now are lost in this current climate.

    Name me one thing that Meehan’s done in the last few years as Chancellor that actually has provided lasting benefit for UML, really. Even the Nanotech center is in serious jeopardy, which is to say the U is going to have to give back money it already got if they reneg those plans…yes, real smart planning there.

    Giving UML the arena is dumb. Now, if we got a PAYment for this, I wouldn’t be inclined to feel so screwed. The city has been having to pay the Arena operating deficit for years while UML reaped benefits, so I think it’s only fair they paid their share for putting that debt to rest. If they can’t afford that maybe they should think twice about buying it. If you buy out a business, you also buy out its debt. (Though like I said, I bet a proposal like that would go over like a lead balloon with the upper management of the UMass system, due to budget cuts.) However, what I am outraged about is the fact that if UML gets this for free, the city taxpayers who’ve been footing the bill get screwed, and it STILL means that it’s an albatross that will affect UML’s bottom line, which isn’t ANY good for students.

    Shawn: yeah, and I’ve been in that hotel…it needs help. Also it has crap for conference venues if I recall correctly. If I were running a convention I wouldn’t be attracted to it. (And is it crashing and burning, above and beyond the general economic malaise? Just wondering.)

19. Mimi Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    First of all, welcome to all the new commentators.

    I also do not want to “give away” the Arena. I know I am in a very small minority but I am not convinced that “giving away” the Arena is in Lowell’s best interest. What can I say, I am Lowell centric.

    Not only can I count, at times I think I can read political tea leaves too. The Arena Give Away is a done deal. You have some very powerful political forces involved and three City Councilors on their own are not going to be able to slow down this fast moving train to figure out if Lowell will get its fair share in this deal.

    After reading the PA Sports & Entertainment Audit Report (we will provide a linke ot the pdf file shortly), I see that there are some possibilities. And yes, it was worth $25,000. You did not think that the Sun was going to say something nice about it, did you? A few years back, weren’t they cheerleading the civic movement to keep the Lockmonster/Devils here?

    From the beginning of the discussions, I have believed that the Arena may never be a profit maker but it certainly can be less of a drain on the City finances. Wouldn’t we be satisfied if we can close the deficit and subsidize the Arena the way we do the Auditorium?

    What disturbs me the most about the tone of the discussion is the defeatist attitude; as if Lowell is not capable of properly handling this entity and we are so grateful that we have a white knight coming to the rescue. The majority of the City Council in effect ordered the City Manager to hand over the Arena to the University. As Lynne alluded in her post/rant , the CM does not have much of a bargaining position when he is directed to make it happen. And if the Chancellor does not want to play ball and give us something of equal value in return? Well there you have it. So because the State gave $24 million, we should turn this over to them without getting anything in return? Is that the argument being made? Hey, let’s give the Auditorium to the University, this way we wouldn’t have to spend $400,000/year. Maybe then in addition to an East Campus, the University can have a Northeast Campus.

    If PC’s comments reflect what a lot of people believe, shouldn’t we ask ourselves why would someone want to take $1 million albatross off our back? I know there is more to this story; there has to be.

    Maybe in a year or two when things fall into place we can look back and see what this was really all about. If this is truly about making U. Mass Lowell a powerhouse in Division 1 NCAA Hockey, then we in this State have our priorities mixed up.

    On another note about the Arena, the comments in yesterday’s Sun made by the University’s Athletic Director and Arena Commission member, Dana Skinner, really ticked me off. He said in regards to the report, “There are some useful suggestions, but by and large the significant financial aspects are the same things we have been talking about for years.”

    If you had been talking about it for years why didn’t you make some proposals to bring about the necessary changes? Also, if you and the Sun do not think there is anything significant in this report, perhaps you can have the “Kraft Report” be made public so we all can read what the blue print is for a successful arena operation is.

20. Lynne Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    By the way, equating the $24M invested from the state as being on the U’s side of the ledger is the silliest thing I have EVER heard. The City also gets money from the state, in the form of local aid and Chapter 70. If you want to try and defend the University’s position here, better find a real argument to back that up.

    Either way, we the taxpayers are funding that deficit, so THAT is a wash either way. What I am saying is that the side of the ledger that counts, which is to say, who’s been paying for that deficit, is the city. How that deal got put together I have no idea, but the fact is, if you want to buy an asset, you also take on its debt. I don’t see why this is not the case with the Arena. Unless the rules don’t apply because it’s Meehan?

21. fishydude Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    This whole fiasco was predictable before ground was ever broken on the arena.
    Whenever government does something that deviates far from the “few and necessary” functions of government, taxpayer debt is guaranteed. There is a private development did not build the arena. IT IS A LOSER!
    If the city counsel had really cared about taxpayers the arena would not have been built buy taxpayers. But as it usual for elective bodies, doing anything, even dumb stuff, is more important than doing nothing. I’d bet dollars to donuts that all of the pre-build talk was about how much money the city would and area would make from the “investment.”
    How many of the city counselors that voted for the white elephant are still serving? Probably most.
    So don’t complain now. Y’all could have voted them out.

22. Dan MacNeil Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    I’m actually not getting the whole http://LeftInLowell.com reported problem. More specific facts like $ per year gained or lost will probably be needed to motivate me to pick up a torch or pitchfork and storm city hall.

    On the face of it, the city cuts lose a money loser and the university gets to own a home for the hockey team.

    x-posting to facebook

23. waittilnextyr Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    The arena has been run poorly, and the City of Lowell taxpayers have picked up the bill for it. The recent audit of its operating costs have identified many areas of waste, items not picked up by the Arena Commission (why should they when someone else picks up the tab?), and expenses not investigated by the City until now - after 10 years of deficits.

    So isn’t the lesson to be learned the policy that the City should not be in the entertainment business, especially with an arrangement of operational responsibility divorced from financial responsibility?

    Although the City retains the responsibility for the outstanding debt (about $2M), the proposed arrangement relieves it of the continuing responsibility for $1M annual operating cost overruns, albeit with a “promise” that it can be reduced in half. The adjacent land issue could be a sticking point, as the arrangement between the University and the City on “best use” seems to be too flexible, and one that the City should not give away for some non-productive use.

    All in all, after 10 years of too much deficit, it is time to fold ‘em and minimize the future losses.

24. inside Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    One thing to remember is that originally UML wanted to build their own arena on campus for the hockey team and other university events. Others the city brought up the idea of a larger facility, then the AHL team came. In my mind this is coming full-circle in that UML will finally get the arena for themselves that was originally desired and the hockey program will continue to thrive. Hints of that have been seen the past two seasons with attendance up over 1,000 per game into the 4000s over previous seasons and the renewed interest around campus and in the community regarding the program. This will be a good thing.

25. walking the halls Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    If this all goes down as described then I think I’ve seen a first: a City subsidizing the state. Is this a whole new concept of “local aid”? In this case the Lowell taxpayers give assistance to the state? If so, the rest of the state says: THANK YOU SUCKERS!!!!!

26. Resident Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    How can the University taking over the enormous annual deficit of the arena be a bad deal for the City and bad deal for the University? Bernie has you not seeing straight on this … You advocate calling City Councilors to say that the University should not get the Arena because it is too valuable and then call Richard Freeland to say the building loses one million a year and the University shouldn’t take it! Boy you are really mad at Marty for god knows what…

27. Anonymous Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

    Please…..the state has done so much for the City of Lowell over the past 20-30- 40 years in no small way due to our strong legislative delegation…..the creation of UMass Lowell, Middlesex Community College locating in Lowell, new schools, the arena, the judicial center (which hopefully will still happen), etc.. the list goes on and on……I hardly feel that we have much to complain about.

28. James Says:
    March 31st, 2009 at 9:08 am

    The devils (no pun intended) are in the details, so I don’t know we can really say one side is getting the better end by what has been reported. I know we won’t get a public vote or anything on the final proposal, i know thats not how it works, but still from what I’ve read it looks like a win-win. As for the profits to pay down the existing debts, I read that in the Sun, I don’t know if it was from a Lynch proposal or a Meehan proposal. But basically the idea was that if UML was able to make the arena profitable, they would help the city pay down existing debts from the arena. Now if that isn’t involved in the final transfer deal obviously thats not as good for the city. As for the adjacent land, it sounds like at least Marty has a plan for making the arena profitable. I’d rather trust an educational institution than this city council, all due respect to the city manager, but the local politics in this town are so minor league quality, at least UMass Lowell doesn’t need to worry as much about what the Lowell Sun prints in the paper every week.

    It sounds like you guys are arguing both ways. The arena could be profitable under city management but its a bad deal for UML because the University because it won’t be profitable. I think there’s plenty of reasons why a University-owned arena would be a better fit than a city-owned arena. They at least have their own team that could be a solid anchor. The Devils aren’t out there to help the city. Anybody who ever dealt with the NJ Devils operation knows that they are awful at promotion anyway. But at least the River Hawks are an integral part of the University.

    Also I knew somebody would talk about the priorities of sports vs. academics, but I don’t think its as simple as that. Bemidji State University is in the Frozen Four. How many people have ever heard of Bemidji, MN, never mind the Bemidji State Beavers. That university is going to get a lot of press over the next few weeks. The hockey team is what sets UMass Lowell apart from UMass Boston and UMass Dartmouth and every other similar school in the region.

    Finally, I have no illusions about Chanceller Meehan being perfect or anything like that but his plans have been for a solid growth in the University. Building new dorms, building new academic buildings, and promoting the university as a whole. Blaming him for the problems with the nanotech center is akin to blaming Obama every time the stock market goes up or down. Marty Meehan had absolutely nothing to do with the state’s bond rating going down. But once again, I think its useful for the University to have a well connected politician with contacts in DC and Beacon Hill to help get the money to ensure this project goes ahead. I’m sure there are plenty of complaints about him too, but from what I see, Marty Meehan is doing what he was hired to do.

29. tom Says:
    March 31st, 2009 at 9:39 am

    Thany you to U M L and Marty. The people of Lowell.

30. Lynne Says:
    March 31st, 2009 at 9:59 am

    Yes, the bacon came home. But that doesn’t mean the methods for getting them (or doing business in this city) are good ones.

31. Fred Says:
    March 31st, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    Don’t forget about the improvments that are needed at the Tsongas. I believe I heard something in the $5M range at one point. UML would be footing the bill for those if they took over the arena.

32. I don't support the van plan anymore Says:
    March 31st, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    Lowell may not need another hotel now but will once the Hamilton Canal District is built. If we don’t build it Chelmsford or Billerica will. Next to the Tsongas is THE perfect location for a new hotel. Especially if the trolley line is extended to go from the train station through the HCD to the ballpark.
    To not support UML hockey is foolish. But I also agree it shouldn’t be at the expense of a quality education. Only good things can come from a successful hockey program.
    As said before a hotel next to the Tsongas would help attract more conventions to Lowell. It would also be convenient for UML to have a hotel practically on campus.

33. Paul Marion Says:
    March 31st, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    I really like the democracy of blogs and the energy they are tapping in our community and others. The more voices in the mix, the healthier the democracy. An old friend of mine and a former city councilor used to say “controversy is the sound of democracy working.” Someone else I know used to urge liberals to call the conservative radio talk shows rather than abandoning certain media fields and ensuring the talk was unbalanced. I appreciate the range of comments here, the most I have seen on one post since discovering LiL. The chancellor is the leader of the university, so it is worth noting for perspective that UML’s freshman enrollment increased more than 20 percent this past September and the number of students of color increased by an even higher percentage, about 40 percent. People worked to make that happen, from the top on down through admissions and departments and marketing. More than $1 million in student scholarship money was raised last spring as part of the new chancellor’s inauguration. Two recent grant projects say a lot about what UML does for the community — with $756,000 from the National Science Foundation, faculty and staff connected to UML’s Center for Family, Work, and Community are teaching nanotechnology in after-school programs (Citizen Schools) at the Robinson and Wang schools in Lowell (”The Science of Small Things”) and a couple of weeks ago the same UML research center with many community partners (CBA, CTI, Lowell Community Health Center, Lowell Housing Authority, & Merrimack Valley Housing Partnership)received a $875,000 US Housing and Urban Development grant to help deal with housing conditions that cause childhood asthma (”Healthy Homes”). UML is a key to bringing those funds to Lowell. Millions of dollars of similar grant projects are being put to work every day in service of the people of Lowell. Every student in the College of Engineering is involved in a service learning project, one of only two public engineering colleges with such a program. The University was recognized last December for its commitment to the city and region with a prestigious national honor from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. UMass Lowell was designated a “community-engaged” university in the categories of “curricular engagement” and “community partnerships.” President Obama likes to say that we need to work together to make a more perfect union. What’s important, says the President, is that we are going in the right direction. We are getting essential things done as we figure out some of the big issues. Let’s take note of the good we are doing together.

Leave a Reply