"Lawrence Chamber of Commerce takes official stance in favor of $25M recreation center"

I'll take "The Bloody Obvious" for $1000, Alex.

Please pull from the agenda for the following reasons:

I have concerns that the proposed Rock Chalk bidding process won’t adequately protect the public.

What conditions must be met in order for a private company to own the majority of the facilities on property zoned for public and institutional uses?

Mr. Fritzel has the inside track to be the builder of the city’s $25 million recreation center through a process that deviates significantly from the city’s standard bidding process.

Mr. Fritzel is a key driving force in this proposed project, in spite of the fact he has not publicly outlined his vision or what he sees as his role in the project either at a City Commission meeting or at a public forum.

Mr. Fritzel will have the ability to use the facilities for other events, if certain conditions are met. Such as ?

The city hasn’t fully weighed the recreation center project against other needed city projects.

The number $25 million is mentioned frequently BUT what about cost for new infrastructure? Who eats this cost? Is it split? If so how?

What are the agreements between all concerned parties? Where can these “agreements” be viewed by the taxpayers?

According to the agenda it appears the City Commission is moving forward hurriedly in spite of not having reviewed all "agreement documents" and without knowing actual dollar amounts.

I am requesting that the Rock Chalk project be pulled from the agenda until such time that all necessary documents have been reviewed and presented to the taxpayers for review?

I am also request that the Rock Chalk project be pulled from the agenda until such time that all necessary tax dollar cost numbers are locked in and presented to the public for review.

In the last 15 months, there have been 17 letters to the editor and 14 LJW editorials opposing/questioning this rec center project. I have never seen such outcry in this community.

Do you think there should be a citywide vote on a new rec center? http://www2.ljworld.com/polls/2013/jan/do-you-think-there-should-be-city-wide-vote-creati/ interesting yet not surprising results thus far.

Alternative Rec Center Project

KU athletics has plenty of money they DO NOT need my tax dollars.

This has been a recklessly presented endeavor from day one. Should have been tabled forever. One more reason this project should be put before the voters.

What could be the alternative?

How can Lawrence taxpayers get the best bang for our 1994 sales tax bucks and improve the quality of life for families throughout the entire community?

Construct a NW neighborhood rec center with 2-3 gyms and a walking/jogging track for public exercise probably for about $10 million. Now we have achieved shoring up the alleged lack of court space.

Connect the Burroughs Creek hike and bike path to the river levy by way off Hobbs Park through the new development in the "eastside warehouse district". A design path has been created so lets get on with it. Maybe cost $200,000.

In doing the above Lawrence,Kansas has effectively improved the quality of life for more families throughout the sales tax dollar community. This is definitely within the spirit of the 1994 sales tax that was approved by families throughout the community.

A best bang for our 1994 sales tax dollars and taxpayers as stakeholders. With a few bucks left over for new landscaping in the "eastside warehouse district" in addition to Rhode Island and Vermont in downtown.

Want to attract higher wage employment to Lawrence, Ks. ?

Invest in the future by way of developing safe walking pathways and safe bicycling pathways. Parents want to feel confident that their children can walk and bike safely to school.

And adults want to feel confident that they can walk and bike safely to employment,grocery shopping and socializing.

All of the above could be accomplished for millions upon millions less that the Rock Chalk Park. Throw in a NW Lawrence Rec Center and taxpaying citizens would STILL be millions upon millions of tax $$$$$ ahead.

Doesn't really seem like a good night for adults to go on a bike ride to the supermarket and/or to socialize.

The naysayers weighing-in above have done:

a) __ to increase Lawrence's quality of life; b) to lower taxes for average homeowners; c) __ to create public programs; d) to improve tourism revenue; e) _ to support those who produce payroll

Please, fill in the blanks to enhance the credibility of these individuals and to convince the rest of us to echo their message. Thanks.

Doug Gaumer works for Intrust Bank. Thomas Fritzel's father-in-law is one of directors on board of directors of Intrust Bank.

Small world...

“We understand that no tax increase will be necessary for construction of this project and therefore no public vote on the issue is necessary,” Gaumer said in the statement.

This is an extremely disingenuous statement. The sales taxes that will be required to pay for this facility have not been levied or collected yet. Voters should be given the opportunity to have a say in whether they want to be paying for this facility for the next 20 years.

Over the last 20 years, this tax has paid for several different projects. If this project happens, that tax will pay for one project, and one project only. Voters, and only voters, should be the ones to make the decision of whether that should happen or not. It shouldn't be decided by movers and shakers in what has to be one of the most secretive, nontransparent and anti-democratic processes in recent memory. If this doesn't go to a vote, city commissioners should be forced to hang their heads in shame.

Put it to a vote. And while we're at it, let voters decide if they want to put in the sunset clause this tax should have had in the first place-- if it was in there, there'd have been no question of whether to have a vote or not.