This morning's editorial - again concerning the fiscal outrage perpetrated by the Capital Improvement Board (CIB) - once more puts forth an alibi for that board. Here's a paragraph from the middle of the presentation.
"The state's takeover of the Lucas Oil Stadium construction project resulted in the doubling of an expected $10 million operating deficit, which the CIB wound up saddled with."
Can someone tell us why state "construction" doubled the size of the "operating" deficit? Did the state add all the "cutting edge" features, like a picture window that opens and a sliding roof, over the objection or without the knowledge of the CIB? Did the state arbitrarily erect a substantially larger building than the CIB planned?
If the situation came as a surprise to the CIB, may one ask upon whom the members expected that $10 million "saddle" to be placed? Or did they hope that, had they issued the bonds themselves rather than signing a lease, they might secretly have rolled a few years of operating costs into the bond issue itself?
We also question the suggestion that the CIB will in fact be "saddled" with anything. Looking at precedent it becomes fairly predictable that, after much moaning and groaning by the involved downtown entities, the "saddle" will be placed squarely on the back of the taxpayer...again.
How long it is going to take for the taxpayer to feel the burr under that saddle and buck these free-loaders off.
And while we're speculating...what ever happened to the 25 years worth of revenue collected from that first penny of the Food and Beverage Tax? Will the new palace ever actually be paid for after we take care of all these gargantuan, "unforeseen" operating costs?