THE ISSUE DESERVES A NEW LOOK

By    BILL TANGER

THE VICTORY Stadium issue has recently prompted some further debate that has been long overdue. More facts, discussion and evaluation of the alternatives are still needed.

Take, for example, the issue of flooding at Victory Stadium, which has never been fully researched or considered. (Nor has it been adequately covered in the media.) Some facts we do know: Historically, the stadium was flooded five times in its 61-year history. Had the new flood reduction project been in place, it would have been flooded only once, in 1985. This flood was classified as a 100-year flood (based on 100 years of records), so we know the statistical chances are it might happen once every 100 years.

City Councilman Rupert Cutler stated recently that he could "not see spending millions of public dollars on a stadium in the floodway" because "sooner or later it will flood again."

Using that logic, we should relocate our sewage treatment plant, as well. Yet we know that would be a foolish move. More reasonable is the decision to "floodproof" the sewage treatment plant, which is what the city has done, in fact, even though it will flood again in the future.

In fact, the removal of the sewage treatment plant from the floodway would be extremely costly and result in wasting "millions of public dollars." Indeed, while ideally it would be better to leave flood plains in their natural state, a flood plain is precisely the logical place for parks, greenways and things like a stadium.

If we were to stop spending public dollars on things in the flood plain, we would need to abandon or destroy the following city projects: the City Market building, the City Market, the sewage treatment plant, the Virginia Museum of Transportation, Center in the Square, the art museum / IMAX project, the Roanoke bus station, etc.

This does not include all of the private enterprise in the floodway, which amounts to hundreds of businesses. One prime example: Roanoke Memorial Hospital. Did hospital officials move out of the floodway? No. They floodproofed and continued to expand the facility.

As someone who has been involved with the flood reduction project for 30 years, I am well aware of the ideal solutions and the real-world solutions to flood reduction. Building a new stadium because one that exists might flood once in 100 years is not a good reason.

Calvin Johnson, the chairman of the Civic Center Commission, recently signed a most misleading essay in this page, implying that the flood reduction project might never be funded. In fact, the president's fiscal year 2004 budget proposes $2 million for the project, which the Corps of Engineers says will allow a construction contract by about June 2004. Phase I should be completed in two to three years, as stated recently by the city engineer.

Then Johnson goes on to blithely mention that Victory Stadium's water troubles are more attributable to drainage than to river flooding. He never mentions the solution to that problem exists. Try Salem for an excellent drainage solution in the flood plain.

The chairman of the Civic Center Commission should step down for presenting such misleading and one-sided information. Of course, he just mouths the words for our city manager, Darlene Burcham.

What would be the cost of drying and cleaning the field as it will be after the flood reduction project goes in? What would the cost be if a new drainage system were in place? Does Victory Stadium need it? This July Fourth, the field dried up a lot faster than the city originally thought it would. We have no answers to these questions.

Most important of all, what would the value of Victory Stadium be after the flood reduction project and renovation - and after a possible drainage system is in place? These questions have never been visited, much less answered.

Meanwhile, the city council needs to get real and start doing its homework on this issue. Much is unknown. Much is unreported. And apparently much opinion is based on very little knowledge or common sense.

One approach could be to put the issue to a referendum, then create a bipartisan committee to study this issue and to develop a white paper that provides objective comparisons of the alternatives that the voters can then use to help make their decision.

No one in this city can justifiably claim to support one stadium or the other with complete authority, since no decent comparison study has ever been done. Let's pause the project and do one now.