BusinessReport.com

Posted by Being_Stupid on November 3, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Vote No.

Individual Free People, not the Government, will build a better Baton Rouge.

More Taxes = Less Jobs
More Taxes = Less Freedom
More Taxes = Less Business Growth
More Taxes = Less Private Investment

Sales Tax of 10% = Socialism
10 Mil Property Tax = Collectivism

The “next great city” will be the city with the lowest taxes.

Posted by jdk944 on November 3, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry Rolfe I don't 'buy it'. The risk in this case is with Taxpayer Dollars!! Why was/has this Administration been so disingenious with it's information on an issue that failed 1 year ago? Why didn't they provided ALL the facts to the MetroCouncil so they could make an informed decision? Remember, most of those on the MetroCouncil are new!! Only when the Bond issue 'came under enough fire' (asking logical questions with little or no facts provided), did they start an aggressive PR campaign, most of which has been totally onesided!! Trust is a very delicate item. Often takes a long time to develop and sometimes only 'moments' to lose. I've been an overwhelming supporter of this Administration and personally know some of it's Leaders. But I am DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED in their attitude when questions have been asked in an attempt to evaluate making a decision ABOUT OUR MONEY! This Administration's stonewalling and caustic attitude have DONE IT FOR ME!! They have spent 'alot' of Political Goodwill on this matter. Hope when they look back on this, it was worth it to all of them.

Posted by bradartigue on November 3, 2009 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

New Orleans is your point of reference?

Really?

I had to check to see if this was a 225 article.

Posted by common_sense_is on November 3, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This article is long on emotion and short on relevant facts. His primary defenses are 1) trust a politician (Holden) and 2) look at the Superdome! First of all, the Superdome and the Alive projects are not even remotely comparable. The Superdome hosts sports teams whereas Alive is meant to simply be a tourist attraction. In addition, Baton Rouge and New Orleans are nothing alike. New Orleans has many other things drawing tourists to that city. Baton Rouge is simply not a tourist destination and never will be. Finally, if we are going to talk about New Orleans, let's talk about Jazzland. In the late '90's, it was getting the same billing as Alive is now. It had the same great economic projections, etc. Within a matter of years it failed. The economic projections for Alive are inherently flawed because of a conflict of interest. The people paying for the projections are also the same people that benefit from the projections. If an unbiased party were to pay for the projections, then we can trust them. Otherwise, they simply cannot be relied upon. That does not even get into the significant other issues with this project, such as the land issue. The land issue existed last year when we voted on this and Holden never said anything about it. And McColister wants us to blindly trust this guy who already misled us once before? Are you kidding me?!

I will be voting No and encourage every reasonable person not drinking this "next great city" kool-aid to do the same.

Posted by ConfusedinBTR on November 3, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"There are no guarantees when it comes to taking risks. There are many failures to prove that. But the one thing you can guarantee is that without a tolerance for risk and without a quest for greatness, mediocrity is the best-case outcome. And I for one, have no desire for mediocrity in Louisiana’s capital city. Not if we expect to compete worldwide in the 21st century."

I find this truly amazing. Are you really willing to make the statement in the above paragraph while in another calling these so called "risk takers" as "visionaries"? Weren't the "risk takers" you mentioned in your article politicians who risked, not their money, but rather yours and mine...where's the risk in that?

Meanwhile, you and your reporters use your newspaper as a medium to trash one of our own local "Visionaries" in the community who did not risk your money or my money or our reputation, but rather staked his own reputation and hard earned money on a truly "visionary" project that is and will continue to be a hallmark development for Baton Rouge for years to come. Where has your "tolerance" been for that risk taker? I'll answer that...you've had none.

I'll have to admit, I'm for the bond issue, I do think it is a great thing for our community and I will support it. But, I am much more "tolerent" of those private risktakers who risk it all to bring great businesses and developments like Perkins Rowe to Baton Rouge. Remember our community, our city, our state and our country is great because of the spirit of the people, not because of the ineptness of our politicians. Please stop the double standard.

Posted by bradartigue on November 3, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I left out that we should also spend a bunch of taxpayer money and have the Baton Rouge World's Fair in 2012.

Using Rolfe's brilliant logic we could model it on the financial successes of the New Orleans World's Fair. I see some great potential here:

A monorail from Third Street to Praireville.
A gondola across the river to scenic Port Allen.
Guided tours of the Exxon refinery's new Green plant.
Daily flights (delayed) to one of three other cities.

Greatness will never come from taxing those of us who produce in this city. Taxing us will, however, make us leave.

Posted by dmc08 on November 3, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I question the validity of the statement that "Seventy-five percent of the money raised will be spent on public works and public safety, infrastructure that is long overdue and badly needed." A significant portion of that 75% figure is the proposed $140 million expenditure on expanding parking garages and upgrading the River Center. This investment is also speculative at best and should not be grouped with the other public safety and infrastructure improvements (which I fully support). Why are we investing in expanding the River Center when convention business is steadily declining? Grouping the Alive project with the River Center and parking garage expansions ($365 million), over one-third of the bond proposal is dedicated to this "If you build it, they will come" philosophy. I was born and raised in Baton Rouge also and want to see the city succeed, but the public is not getting the best bang for our buck with these investments. We are told that funding Alive will help to retire the debt early. I have a novel idea, cut the size of the bond package by $300 million and we can pay it off even earlier without relying on the risky investments in "economic development."

Posted by gemini01 on November 3, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Politics as usual ..... If ALIVE is such a good idea, then one wouldn't need to 'piggy-back' on infrastructure improvements that are really needed. ALIVE should stand by itself - if it is a good idea.

Posted by citizen on November 3, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rolfe,

The issue before us does include more good than bad, and most projects are vital for our community to function and to move forward in the new century.

Our buildings are old, drainage and streets always need attention; and it costs money to keep things going.

The Alive project, or the River Center expansion will not define Baton Rouge. I am surprised you are falling for all the razz ma tazz and the propoganda.

Our city will be defined not because of a tourist attraction, or how big our downtown gets; it will be defined by the people that live here.

Voters have passed major capital outlay taxes to build streets, schools, libraries and parks. As a result of these capital projects you can hardly drive around our town and not see a street project, a park project, or a school project.

Baton Rougeans have repeatedly stepped up to the plate and pledged their tax dollars to make Baton Rouge the kind of city we'll all be proud to call home. But as you noticed all of these projects benefited the people of our city directly, and none were risky.

The Alive project and the River Center project are both big risks. Risks we do not need to take when other issues are still right in front of us.

What about the needed loop? What about widening I-10 from Acadian to the west bank? Nobody in the leadership is talking about those two big issues right now, but both are vital to make Baton Rouge grow.

Rolfe, I'm a Baton Rougean too, if the parish and state want to invest in a project in conjunction with a major private investor down by the river, that's one thing; but to go it alone isn't a good idea at all.

citizen

Posted by Primer on November 3, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

10% equals socialism? Sounds like somebody needs a dictionary. That statement is just plain stupid.

Baton Rouge and Louisiana in general have a very low tax burden comparitively speaking. I'd like it to stay that way, but this bond issue is worth the price tag. There are far too many examples of this type of project working throughout the country to claim it doesn't work. I can't blame the naysayers for being apprehensive or even fearful, but I'm so glad to see Baton Rouge making a bold move for once. Baltimore paid for its wonderful Harborplace development using public bond funds (in part), and it singlehandedly changed the face of that industrial town in such positive ways, I can't even begin to describe.

Bravo, Rolfe! I'll be there on voting day with many of my neighbors to support the passage of this issue.

Posted by CentralMom on November 3, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You sound like you're reading the Mayors own press sheet, verbatim.

I have still yet to hear where he gets his figures for Alive or back up the outrageous numbers he's coming up with.

I agree with Gemini01....Politics as usual ..... If ALIVE is such a good idea, then one wouldn't need to 'piggy-back' on infrastructure improvements that are really needed. ALIVE should stand by itself - if it is a good idea.

Posted by DCER on November 3, 2009 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rolfe, you are reaping what you have sown. Like most conservatives, you've spent years saying government can do no good, that all taxes are bad, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Now that you are supporting a public investment like the Bond Package, can you really be surprised that your right (and far right) of center readers cry things like "socialism" and say that crticial infrastructure improvements are "losses of freedom." You've poisoned your own well.

Posted by jhanco1 on November 3, 2009 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd like to go against the grain and say thank you for endorsing the bond and writing this column. I think you make several good points.

And I'd also like to make one quick response to CentralMom on her "I have still yet to hear where he gets his figures for Alive or back up the outrageous numbers he's coming up with," statement.

The Holden administration has made perfectly clear how the numbers were conceived. If you cared more than enough to just hate the bond because you don't like taxes or don't like Holden, or whatever your reason, you'd see that Web sites like voteyesebr.com and progressis.org and brgov.com have made this kind of information available. The mayor even held a special press conference that addressed some 20+ questions about ALIVE. The transcript from that event and Jim Richardson's economic impact study are posted on the aforementioned sites.

Of course ALIVE is a risk. Any kind of business venture is. But Dr. Richardson didn't just pull numbers out of hat. He is the state's chief economist and an objective third party with extensive experience in economic forecasting.

Why would Holden support something like ALIVE if he didn't think it could be successful. How foolish would it be for him to want to do something that wouldn't be beneficial for Baton Rouge ... that doesn't make any sense at all.

Why is everyone so afraid for Baton Rouge to be a city that actually wants to improve it's quality of life, be it via infrastructure or public safety improvements or economic development like the proposed riverfront developments. As a recent out-of-state LSU graduate, I think it's depressing how so many people seem to care so little about the possibilities that exist for this city. I originally didn't plan to stay in Baton Rouge after graduating. I thought of moving to Chicago or maybe Nashville, among others. Turns out, here I am, and every once in a while I get really excited about the potential that exists for this city. Other times I wonder how long I'll be able to stick around so many naysayers.

Posted by BatonRougeMyHome on November 3, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Amid all the debate this year and last about Holden’s proposals, including a healthy if sometimes bruising debate about proposed riverfront developments, two facts are clear.
One is that just about everything in Holden’s plan is long overdue. The drainage projects, a new jail, a new juvenile justice campus, a new police headquarters — those are projects that Baton Rouge voters could and should have funded years or decades ago, at lower cost. The mayor cannot be faulted for the price tag, a 9.9-mill property tax and a half-cent sales tax. Failures of vision and political will in the past have piled up the backlog, and the cost.
One other fact is that most of this is not Holden’s plan, nor that of the Metro Council. The professionals in city government were asked what their departments needed in a bond issue; in just about every case, it’s a big-ticket item that the city-parish simply can’t fund out of day-to-day revenue.
Most of us don’t want to pay taxes, nor do we like to borrow money; at the very best, it will take 18 years to pay off these bonds, at worst a full 30 years. But most of us should be willing to pay if improvements are needed and the politics is kept to a minimum. In Holden’s proposal, both things are true.
Further, the administration has a good track record of building projects on time and within budget. The mayor’s credibility in that regard is a factor in our endorsement of this proposal, as is the enthusiastic support of the Baton Rouge Area Chamber, the sheriff and other law enforcement officers, and many civic groups that have looked into the details." - Advocate Editorial,11-01-09
PLEASE VOTE YES!!

Posted by weirdfreddie on November 3, 2009 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry to see Rolfe has drunk the Kool-Aid.
Why do we need a 30 bond to pay off what we are being told will be paid off in 18 years? My guess is because the bankers didn't buy that story any more than I do.

Posted by susfree on November 3, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, Rolfe for taking a bold stand on the need for a better Baton Rouge. This is the right thing for Baton Rouge and NOW is the time! Unfortunately, many with limited vision and low self-esteem are a loud minority. I applaud you for taking the high road and doing so in a manner in which we as a community can be proud. Your vision has been bold and now, you have put your money where your mouth is. Bravo! Remember, we can't fix stupid. As Teddy Roosevelt so eloquently said, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Posted by lsuman on November 3, 2009 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Give me one good reason why "Alive" shouldn't stand on its own as an up or down vote? Is it because we all know this will fall flat on its face? I don't think the majority of people who cast a vote are going to appreciate this being shoved down our throats as a piggback to projects that are much needed. I say save us all the public expense of revisiting this again and let us vote for this project separately.

Posted by butch on November 3, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where does he get his figures for Alive, CentralMom?

Far as I can tell from looking at a recently revised version of that report (which is all I could find), mostly from "economic studies" originally contracted for by the very same organization Mayor Holden has chosen to operate the facility: Audubon Nature Institute. ANI. Talk about a conflict of interest...

Who is ANI, anyway?

What have we still not been told about them by various news organizations, here after voting has actually begun?

Well, somebody already mentioned ANI's shocking anti-environmental history of trying to defeat the Clean Water Act which protects wetlands via the 404 permitting process--something heretofore not mentioned by the Advocate or the BRBusRpt. Here are a few more points not (yet?) talked about in the media:

1) ANI is private. As such, its books, internal workings, including its meeting minutes, are closed to the public, unlike those of a public governmental organization. There have been a number of complaints from members of the New Orleans public centered around those issues.

2)What ANI seems to do well are various forms of zoos, if one doesn't count the recent reports of net revenue losses on some or all of their facilities.

What they don't do well is natural history education and outreach, the very thing Alive is supposed to provide. ANI absorbed ---some say in a controversial manner---the formerly independent Louisiana Nature Center and then shut it down. As far as I know, it remains shut to this day.

3) Research-wise, ANI also is not nearly as great as touted. Their endangered species recovery center is basically a molecular manipulation facility. In terms of costs vs benefits, that approach is not considered a top drawer tool for conservation or preservation of biological diversity. It's last-ditch and very expensive. It is rather headline-friendly, however.

Although I have little trouble with it personally, genetic manipulation is also controversial. How many Baton Rougeans think recombitant DNA, creating chimeras, and cloning is fine as long as it's for a good purpose? How many object to such on moral or religious grounds? Are they aware that ANI has devoted an entire facility to such techniques? Something tells me the answers are: not many, no, and no.

So...are there any reporters at all left on the local/regional environmental or science beat? Was Mike Dunne the last? Where ARE you, journalists, publishers, courageous owners? Come on, y'all, these aren't state secrets here. Give us the facts, and (I would say let us discuss them but there's no time at this late date)let us the public decide from an informed position.

If I see no articles talking about any of this between now and the election, that will tell me something about the "news" media here.

Posted by BRBeliever on November 3, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

East Baton Rouge Parish's millage is below the state average.

We are the highest performing city in the State economically.

This added millage would bring us to the state average, while the projects that will come from the added millage will propel us to whole new level of excellence. We are not only the new bar-setter for the State we are now being viewed as a bar-setter for the Country.

This did not happen on accident, and it didn't happen by finding every reason to stifle positive growth. It has happened because we have an incredibly fiscally conservative Mayor (reference the sewer and green light programs if you want to debate the previous statement), with a tremendous vision of just how great this City can become.

Voting No is not a solution.

Don't blindly follow the Mayor. Examine his record, and see that for the past 5 years he has worked tirelessly for this city and the results have been Internationally recognized. Then ask yourself "Did he work that hard to lull me into a false-sense of security and trust, so that he could trick me into voting for a project that will line the pockets of the rich and ultimately be seen as one of the greatest failures of this City? Or, has he put together a Bond Proposal that has been confirmed by leading economists and independent bond raters as conservative and fiscally sound?"

I hope that you Vote YES! on Nov 14th.

But, if you don't, I hope that you have read and heard a lot more than this column, or the Advocate, or WJBO. I hope that you have seen a bond presentation, I hope that you have read Richardson's economic study, I hope that you have watched the ALIVE presentation with Tom Hennes. All of which are available online, just like this column. That would mean that you are making an educated decision

Because if you have not, your opinion is uneducated and driven by commentary. Which has nothing to do with the Mayor, but speaks volumes of you

Posted by Harvey on November 3, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All ye who preach that there is no great success without risk-taking: Put your own money where your mouth is! Form a corporation and sell stock to build Alive. Let's see whether the big insurance companies, the venture capitalists, and the Progress Is... members buy into it. I would probably buy shares, myself, but that would be my decision, with my money--not taxpayers'.

Posted by Sane_in_Central on November 3, 2009 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you look into the facts about the Audubon Nature Institute, they operate under all public meetings and open records laws. Their facilities are owned by the city of New Orleans and Audubon operates them. Everything is done in the sunshine. Why are we attacking them for wanting to work with Baton Rouge?

And the man who determines the budget for the state of Louisiana couldn't have pulled numbers out of a hat. If he did, he'd never work as an economist again.

Thanks, Rolfe! Time for Baton Rouge to lead in something other than college sports.

Time to stop young people leaving here by the thousands every year. Isn't anyone excited to see so many young people excited about Baton Rouge?

Let's vote YES!

Posted by marctravis on November 3, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will vote YES on the bond issue.

Posted by phil on November 3, 2009 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

New Orleans already has the Saints and the Audubon Nature Institute attractions. So how does New Orleans rank on crime, poverty, public education etc.? Need I say more?
Vote smart and vote NO!

Posted by bradartigue on November 3, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I laugh when anyone mentions an "expert" appointed by the Holden administration as independent or objective.

Young people leave Baton Rouge because there are no jobs here that interest young professionals. What we offer is bad education, crime, and a declining infrastructure. What we're suggested is to fix some of these issues but then augment the negatives with a short-term amusement park on the river, which will be used to house crackheads shortly after it folds in 2013.

I would support this bond issue if it excluded Alive...mainly because Alive cannot stand on its own and has failed in similar attempts in so many other cities.

Baton Rouge can be a great city without this idiocy.

Posted by Progressive_Equals_Liberal on November 3, 2009 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

- Alive does not equal Superdome.
- The economic study has independence issues.
- "Progress Is" is funded by the Bond PAC. It has independence issues.
- Why are there no private investors lined up?
- If it is taxpayer money how is it a risk?
- Does anyone remember Jazzland and its very similar media hype and economic study?
- Will we have to vote on Alive next year too?

Posted by KoolAid_Man on November 4, 2009 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

VOTE YES !!!

DO IT FOR THE KIDS!!!

OH YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!

JOIN THE BATON ROUGE KOOL-AID PARTY !!!

Posted by betterbr4me on November 4, 2009 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I voted Yes during early voting!

Posted by butch on November 4, 2009 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sane in Central and BRBeliever

For a different, far less rosy view of Audubon Nature Institute's record, go to www.saveaudubonpark.org.

Click around, don't just stay on the first page. Yeah, you'll probably say, oh, just a bunch of NIMBY's who probably live next to the park, and got used to it being an extension of their back yards. Well, yeah, maybe there's some of that going on. But look closely at their complaints. Read the comments, too. Lotsa smoke there. I'd say...far more smoke than a simple NIMBY fire warrants.

Oh, yeah, and I'm sure ANI does abide by most existing public records and meeting laws. Piece of cake for them, because almost none of those laws apply to private bodies! Note that a great many of the complaints at the above website center around ANI's lack of public inclusiveness and transparency, and their stewardship of publicly owned resources.

Folks, just google around a bit, will you? There's even a Times-Picayune article about some effort to revamp New Orleans' parks and recreation programs into something more efficient and modern, something like our own multi-national award-winning BREC. The article points out that those services are presently fragmented, ANI being one of the big pieces! So, while some of the most progressive New Orleanians (including Arnie Fielkow, apparently) is looking to make itself over in OUR image, and here we are, going backwards trying to fragment and balkanize our own parks offerings. How crazy is that?

Look at this website. Is this what we Baton Rougeans will sound like in 10 years?

If so, I certainly hope someone will remember that at least a few private citizens tried to raise some serious questions before it was too late.

Posted by Hedgehog on November 4, 2009 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Rolfe you speak with a rich man's voice.

If you look at the City of Baton Rouge, you will discover a lot of folks that don't have your kind of money. This tax will cut their standard of living 1/2 of a percent.

Posted by eph4v29 on November 4, 2009 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I did the research. I attended the meetings; several of them. I am as "visionary" as anyone. I love Baton Rouge. I am not automatically anti-tax or NIMBY. I like the idea of a vibrant downtown with entertainment/educational options, and believe the entire parish would benefit from such. I believe Mayor Holden has earned our trust and respect. I take my responsibility as a taxpayer and voter very seriously.

All said, I cannot support the bond proposal, simply because I do not trust the projections for Alive. By any measure, Alive is the most important aspect of the poeposal, and as such the proposal's viability depends on reasonable expectations that Alive will be a success. The numbers do not hold up; it is way more expensive than anything you can find anywhere else of a comparable scope; and I don't think it will have the synergistic effect that the proponents are predicting (and upon which the entire concept depends.)

I have looked and asked for a detailed, itemized budget breakdown of the $225 million cost, but have never found one (likewise for the proposal last year.) So,I am forced to evaluate it on comparable projects and general industry trends and standards - by any measure other than those provided by the project's own understandably biased promotion team, there is no way to justify almost a quarter-billion dollars (plus the $40 million that the State may or may not pony up.) That's not being obstructionist, non-visionary, Neanderthal, or any of the other derogatory labels immediately applied to anyone who asks detailed questions - it's just being responsible. Could something similar to Alive possibly be built for half the cost (maybe not on such an expensive site) and $100 million or so be spent to make some real improvements to downtown that the locals will be able to use? Did anyone even ask similar ROI questions, or is it Alive or nothing?

Posted by eph4v29 on November 4, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Numbers aside, I do not believe that even if Alive somehow performs as promised, that a revitalized downtown will make the difference in the "young professionals" (however they are defined) deciding whether to stay or leave. "Honey, I have an offer for $20K more in [Nashville/Boulder/Dallas/pick one], but Baton Rouge has Alive, some new restaurants and a fancy hotel downtown? We're staying!" No, what the YP's will be looking for is good education, transportation, cost of living vs overall amenities, and overall quality of life; none of which are solved by this proposal. Sorry if that qualifies me as a naysayer, but I think we have too much "Austin-envy" going on around here that's making us ignore the real barriers to progress.

Unfortunately, the rush to "do-something-even-if-it's-questionable" and packaging the worthwhile projects with the highly questionable inevitably brings up questions of trust, competence, and motive that can't be answered. Rolfe, your (and JR's) promise to hold the proponents accountable for the proposal's success won't help the taxpayers if it ends up being a disaster.

There are other ways to accomplish this - if it fails, then maybe the community leaders will step back, take a breath, and put together a plan that doesn't depend on slick marketing, unverified/unrealistic projections, unjustified costs, and unchallengeable rhetoric, and get the important things done. To me, that would be real progress.

Posted by butch on November 4, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

eph4v29, you ask some extremely pertinent questions. I too share your feeling that something like Alive could be built, operated, and maintained for way less than 225 million tax dollars.

I'm also very uncomfortable with the virtuality and artificiality of "Alive" as presented by its promoters.

The site is IN the nation's largest and most important river, for goodness sakes! Why not take advantage of and accentuate the site's many natural history positives instead of doing YET ANOTHER high-tech whiz-bang indoorscape that could just as easily be located anywhere?

I'd like to see a nice floating boardwalk and pier, with a high observation deck and lookout points with telescopes and binoculars. People could spend hours watching migrating birds and ships on the river.

There could be areas set aside for a catch-and-release kids' fishing pier, with fulltime degreed docents providing equipment, assistance, and environmental interpretation.

And if the site's many willows aren't cut down to build a building, there will be loads of tree frogs and garter snakes people can discover themselves.

Such a "passive" facility would encourage people to discover for themselves and interact directly with their environment rather than experience one more virtual reality computer-generated version of it.

Why not consult with Baton Rouge-based natural history organizations? Why not ask the Sierra Club, Baton Rouge Audubon Society, and the newly located arm of the National Audubon Society to help? One would assume that those long established, well-known nature groups have been included in the planning of "Alive", but they haven't. Each of these groups has dozens of active, capable, well-trained members who'd love to help plan and work at such a facility, for a mere fraction of the cost of "Alive".

And that's another thing. Tourists ---the kind we tend to get in S. Louisiana---don't want kitsch and glitsch. They want the real thing. They want "authenticity".

They're trying to get a little respite from living a virtual life, as if they had a cellphone surgically implanted into their heads, a keyboard for fingers, and televisions for eyes. They're trying to escape all the bells and whistles, beeps and peeps. They come to Louisiana for the real deal.

So I say let's give it to them. Let's not be embarrassed our river is muddy, our catfish are monsters, and none of it is trapped behind the glass of an aquarium or the pixels of an IMAX. Let's stay true to ourselves and make best use of what we've got, and don't make it and us into something we're not.

Vote "no", and let's send "Alive" back to the drawing board in exchange for something real and true.

We've spoken once. Let's speak again, and perhaps this time our leaders will listen.

Posted by DAS_KAPITAL on November 4, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HA HA HA, HO HO HO, HA HA HA

1 Billion Bond Plan is a Joke!

We need at least a 3 or 4 Billion Bond Plan if we want to build the next Great Stalingrad on the Mississippi. It takes real SACRIFICE to build the next great city!

All you stupid greedy people think about is “ME”, “MYSELF”, and “I”!

“What’s in it for ME!” – do you feel no shame…?…….HA..HA..HA

A real comrade gives everything expecting nothing in return.

Posted by Politivore on November 4, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rolfe: Thanks to both you and JR for taking a stand on the issue, even one as seemingly unpopular as this one. Then again, given the typical vitriol tossed about here by the bond opponents, I'm guessing you probably expected this kind of reaction. Come to think about it, it's almost turned into an internet meme of the anti-tax fans. Say something in support of a taxing measure and watch the internet go insane. It's kind of amusing actually. Good for you in not being intimidated by rumor, innuendo, and less-than-substantive arguments against the bond proposal. I'll gladly stand on the side that has researched the potential impacts of this proposal, rather than the one that brings the same typical arguments in opposition. We've headed the arguments against taxes in the past, and now we're stuck paying a whole lot more for capital improvements that should have been completed years ago.

Vote Yes November 14th!

Posted by eph4v29 on November 4, 2009 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just for fun, I went back and looked at Dr Richardson's report again (it's at http://voteyesebr.com/docs/FinalReportBa... )and discovered something I had overlooked. When I had read it several times before, I was mostly trying to look at the figures and projections, and may have missed the forest for the trees. From the very first paragraph, the report reads as if Dr Richardson had his mind made up what the research should reveal, and then proceeds to make sure that it does just that. There is very little in the way of "what'if's" or consideration of any opposing viewpoints or other scenarios. Even without looking at the numbers, the accompanying narrative hardly appears to be an unbiased, objective analysis, but rather a promotional piece which "proves" exactly what it assumes in the first place.

I do not question Dr Richardson's qualifications or motives, but merely observe that his paper seems to be presented from a particularly one-sided perspective. And regardless of Dr Richardson's credentials, I would be reluctant to use something prepared and presented by one individual (as the report states) as the cornerstone for a $900 million proposal, on which the "future of Baton Rouge" depends. Were there any other truly independent studies prepared, or even considered? If so, where are they? If not, why not? Will Dr Richardson be "held accountable" if his projections are wrong? With time, I'm sure I could find other equally qualified experts who could set out to "prove" an opposing view - would they be given any credence in this discussion?

Posted by BatonRougeMyHome on November 4, 2009 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PLEASE VOTE "YES" on NOVEMBER 14!

Let's show some vision, let's extend some trust.

Thank you.

Posted by Hedgehog on November 4, 2009 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To: BatonRougeMyHome

SINCE YOU ARE TURNING THIS ARTICLE INTO AN

ADVERTISEMENT REFLECTING YOUR OPINION:

I say to you:

JUST SAY NO TO KIPS FISH BOWL !

Thank you.

Posted by marctravis on November 5, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Vote YES on November 14.

Posted by wifewontletmeleaveBR on November 5, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. McCollister, thank you for providing this forum. I respectfully ask that you name one city that has "taxed" itself into greatness.

If we really want to be great, we have to build a larger airport.

Posted by KoolAid_Man on November 5, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The experts say yes!!

Business Report
The Advocate
The Sheriff
Dr. Richardson
Adam Knapp with BRAC (or is it BRAF?)
The Police Chief
The Baker Police Chief
Mary & Mitch Landrieu
Mayor Holden & Walter Monsour & Mike Futrell & Mike Walker
& Jamie "Whatever his name?" with Canes Chicken Management & PI - Progress Is Group

Why question the experts? They are way smarter than us. Don't question everything. Just vote the way they say to vote. Leave the thinking up to the experts.

And drink the Kool-Aid.

OH YEAAAAAAHHH!

Posted by draws_with_light on November 9, 2009 at 1:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

1. Mr. McCollister says, “Imagine New Orleans today without the Superdome. I can’t.” The Superdome bonds are paid for by a hotel and motel tax which is included in the bill that visitors in the New Orleans pay – not by property and sales taxes which are how Holden wants the bond indebtedness for Alive! to be paid.

2. The attendance figures that it is claimed Alive! will attract are not far off the pre-Katrina figure for New Orleans Aquarium of the Americas. The Aquarium of the Americas is heavily dependent on tourists because, unlike the Audubon Zoo, the locals are not as supportive. In order for Alive! to have the projected attendance figures the number of tourists would need to approximate that of New Orleans from the very first year onward. Dream on! Furthermore, the Aquarium of the Americas is subsidized by revenue generated by the Imax Theater which is part of the same building complex as the Aquarium. Without the Imax theater subsidy the Aquarium of the Americas would be perennially in the red. Alive! has no such auxiliary source of funding.

Posted by Being_Stupid on November 9, 2009 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OH MY GOD!!!

ALL OUR YOUNG PEOPLE WILL LEAVE BATON ROUGE!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! THE TAX PLAN IS GOING TO FAIL! BRIDGES WILL FALL DOWN. DOWNTOWN WILL BECOME A GHOST-TOWN. THE OLD PEOPLE WILL TAKE OVER, WE WILL BE SURROUNDED BY LINCOLN TOWNCARS, MERCURY MARQUIS, CADILLACS, CHEVY CAPRICES & OTHER LARGE SEDANS THAT OLD PEOPLE CAN’T DRIVE & THAT CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE SUPPORTED BY OUR FEABLE BRIDGES!!! THERE WILL BE NO JAILS FOR OUR SERIAL KILLERS. PEOPLE WILL DIE!! – OH NO… DON’T VOTE NO.

Only the Democrats in Congress and our mandated healthcare bill can save us now.

Posted by butch on November 9, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sane_in_Central

This is a bit old---2002---but it hints at the opacity (LACK of sunshine, a.k.a., open, transparent, publicly inclusive) with which Audubon Nature Institute allegedly frequently operates in their stewardship of considerable public resources. Check it out:

http://www.urbanconservancy.org/letters/...

Please don't stop here, though, nor take my word for it. Just google around a bit will you? Particularly, look at the entire www.saveaudubonpark website, comments and all.

Also---check out ANI's rating on Charity Navigator. Out of a possible 4 stars (I believe), ANI gets only a 2.
If they are so great and fine a charity, why just a 2?

And here is our state "streamlining government" commission now considering requiring the opening for public bid some of these NGO who-you-know political gravy train slush fund grant projects in order to make state government more accountable, transparent, and honest. We've all heard Treasurer Kennedy's "Why are we giving tax dollars to the Purple Ladies of Distinction Social Club?" rant. But what direction are we in EBR going with the no-bid Alive mega-project? Why just the opposite! It's the exact same thing, just a wee bit bigger.

So, please do just a little bit of research before voting to simply open our public coffers to yet another opaque nongovernmental private organization.

Alive is pretty, yes, but all that glitters is not gold.

Posted by Hedgehog on November 11, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Being_Stupid:

Have you had any good dog biscuits lately. I noticed in

one of your previous remarks, that is one of your

pastimes.

I hate to say it, but on this one idea I agree with you:

JUST SAY NO TO KIPS FISH BOWL

Posted by vicarhoward on November 11, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The farsighted PLAN BR I brought us the emerging focus that is DOWNTOWN SOUTH. The Old Governor's Mansion, the Old State Capitol, LASM and Planetarium, The stunning Shaw Center/Manship/LSU MOA and the Hilton/Heidelberg, new Court Building, City Plaza II, etc. and soon to be Indigo and projected new EBR library and refurbished City Hall are all centered on the developing North Blvd. Plaza. Now the vision of PLAN BR II brings us along (historic) Third St. and a possible Riverfront Entertainment District toward DOWNTOWN NORTH. The Main St. Market, Kress/Welsh & Levy restoration, new State Museum, Tourist Center, renovated restaurants, underpass and apartments and commercial venues on the river near the casino, possible grocery/drug store, theatre and AND ALIVE will center on a to-be-developed Spanish Town Rd. or a North/Main St. Plaza. Please note many of these are already in existence or under active development. A L I V E will be a tremendous boost with its FREE riverwalk and ampitheatre for events and picnics, PAID venue for education and entertainment and its ability to attract local families and out-of-state visitors as well as international scientists and school children studying nature, rivers and deltas. As a visitor to the Chattanooga Aquarium, N.O. Riverwalk areas and St. Louis Arch I know the value and joy of downtown revitalization and tourism. As a citizen and Spanish Town native here I will vote YES on Nov. 14. Rev. Howard Hall

Posted by pmccarron on November 12, 2009 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Vicarhoward, I commend the DDD and their efforts to improve Downtown.

Alive may be a "tremendous boost" to some who own downtown property, but it will steal from every other business owner and stifle development in other parts of Baton Rouge via the new sales & property tax.

The purpose of Government is to provide for infrastructure that is necessary to support Private Development, not to become or replace the Private Developer.

Business Opportunity migrates to cities with a low cost of living and low taxes, not to cities that have a high cost of living and high taxes.

Posted by StacieT on November 12, 2009 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Skip eating out tonight.

Skip shopping at the mall.

Forget buying a house in EBR
(I’ll go live in a neighboring parish)

Won’t spend any money here.

Taxes too high.

Posted by marctravis on November 12, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Vote YES on the bond. Vote YES for Baton Rouge's future.

Posted by vicarhoward on November 12, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To- pmccarron:re: Private Development/Business Opportunity I agree that developers and businesses are an important part of the picture (as with many downtown items I cited) yet I believe it is also helpful for government to step up to the plate, often in partnership and as catalyst, as was done with the Shaw Center and, I understand, with other projects such as the St. Louis Arch. And didn't I see many of the "Business Community" backing a YES to the bond issue in today's Advocate: e.g. GBR Business Report, 225, BR Area Chamber, GBR Board of Realtors, BR AIA Architects, Congregate and Aggregate Assn., Associated General Contractors, Executive Digest, the Advocate and other "Business people" not to mention many tradespersons who will profit from expanded jobs? I still say; Y E S !
Vicar Howard (Thanks for the dialogue)

Posted by KoolAid_Man on November 13, 2009 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Everybody!!!

It's Official!!!

I, KOOL-AID MAN, Am officially endorsing the Mayor's Bond Plan!

OH YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!

Posted by butch on November 24, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Audubon Zoo keepers love their employers so much they just voted to join the Teamsters' Union.

We dodged a bullet again.