Friday, November 27, 2015

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL WARTHOG A-10 THUNDERBOLT 2

X
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II
X
source article( may have annoying link  use browser settings to block it)
or just read article here-
copied and pasted; ( source cited)
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/
X

How an ugly, brutally effective warplane won the battle for its future

By David Axe
 
November 24, 2015








X
U.S.-backed Syrian rebels launched an attack late last month on Islamic State militants near the town of Hawl in northern Syria. They regained control of roughly 100 square miles of territory, according to the U.S. Defense Department.
“It was a fairly straightforward, conventional offensive operation,” Army Colonel Steve Warren told reporters via video conference from Baghdad, “where we estimated … several hundred enemy [fighters] were located in that vicinity.”
Warren continued his description. “There was a substantial friendly force — well over 1,000 participated in the offensive part of this operation. And they were able to very deliberately execute the plan that they had made themselves.”
Two types of U.S. warplanes, both optimized for precision attacks in close coordination with ground troops, were critical to the Syrian rebels’ success, Warren revealed. “We were able to bring both A-10s and a Spectre gunship to bear,” he said, “… It can only be described as devastating …. it killed nearly 80 enemy fighters and wounded many more.”
Video shot by a correspondent from the Kurdish Hawar News Agency showed A-10s wheeling over the battlefield as rebel fighters advanced.
The lumbering Spectre gunship, basically a cargo plane with side-firing guns, is one of the Air Force’s favorite aircraft. It’s the beneficiary of billions of dollars in new funding to buy new models and upgrade older ones.
But the twin-jet A-10, an ungainly-looking, single-pilot plane with thick, straight wings and a massive, nose-mounted cannon, is out of favor with Air Force leaders — despite being vitally important to the U.S.-led campaign against Islamic State. The flying branch’s top generals and civilian officials have fought for years to get rid of all 300 A-10s and divert their operators and budget to other initiatives. Meanwhile, a grass-roots effort led by current and former U.S. ground troops and bolstered by key lawmakers has protected the A-10, also known by its nickname “Warthog.”
Why the Warthog fell out of favor, and how the plane endures despite the Air Force’s eagerness to retire it, reveals deep schisms within the U.S. military as it continues its war against Islamic extremists while also retooling to deter high-tech Russian forces.
The A-10 is one plane that’s clearly helping Syrian fighters retake their homes from Islamic State. Yet it’s also a uniquely evocative symbol of strife inside the Pentagon.
X
World War II origins
The A-10 is a product of the 1940s. During World War II, the German and Soviet air force both fielded warplanes specifically designed for attacking enemy ground forces in close proximity to friendly troops.
The German Stuka and the Soviet Sturmovik airplanes were both highly maneuverable, heavily-armed, tough-built and easy to fly and maintain. They could take off from dirt airstrips near the frontlines, fight their way through enemy defenses and linger over the battlefield searching for targets, which they could attack with devastating barrages of gunfire and bombs.
In the 1960s, the U.S. Air Force decided it needed an airplane that could perform a similar role. In the years between the Korean War in the early 1950s and the conflict in Vietnam, the flying branch had reconfigured itself for waging nuclear war in Europe. It traded in its low- and slow-flying ground-attack planes in favor of fast but lightly built jets, whose main job was essentially to lob a single atomic bomb at the Soviet Union — as the world ended around it.
But the Vietnam War was fought with conventional weaponry. Nuclear bombers weren’t suited to the dirty work of blasting enemy ground forces during close gun battles. “Lacking a tested tactical doctrine to deal with such warfare, the Air Force had to hammer out one in combat,” Lieutenant Colonel Ralph A. Rowley wrote in a 1976 Air Force study.
“The Air Force modified old aircraft and equipment to meet close air support needs,” Rowley explained. “Attrition took its toll of these aged planes, with the communists in Vietnam countering their tactics and shooting quite a few down. The answer seemed to lie in the development of an aircraft expressly for close air support.”
In 1966, the Air Force began developing a new, purpose-built ground-attack plane. Pierre Sprey, then a young aerospace engineer working for the secretary of defense, helped shape the new plane’s design. For inspiration, he looked to the World War II Stuka and Sturmovik.
“The ability of the Stuka and Sturmovik,” Sprey said, “operating out of dirt fields up near the troops, to fly five sorties or more per day under combat crisis conditions proved to be an enormous force multiplier.”
The Air Force evaluated two prototypes and, in 1973, selected the A-10 from Fairchild Republic, a now-defunct airplane manufacturer. Today Northrop Grumman owns the A-10 design, which stands out among other warplane models for its thick construction, high-mounted engines (to protect them from ground fire) and huge, nose-mounted 30-millimeter cannon, which can spew one-pound, armor-piercing projectiles at a rate of roughly 60 per second.
The A-10 is perhaps most interesting for what it is not. It’s subsonic, meaning it can’t exceed the speed of sound like so many other warplanes can. Unlike the Air Force’s other fighters, it’s not suited for a combat pilot’s most prestigious role, battling other planes in the air. It’s blunt, blocky and, by Air Force standards, ugly. In many ways, the Warthog is the antithesis of a modern jet fighter. Hence its lowly nickname compared to the F-15 “Eagle,” F-16 “Viper,” F-22 “Raptor” and F-35 “Lightning.”
Fairchild built more than 700 Warthogs for the Air Force through 1984, for the low price of just $21 million each in today’s dollars. By contrast, a new F-35 stealth fighter costs more than $100 million each today.
By 1984, the Vietnam War was long over, of course. Instead of flying into battle with Vietnamese insurgents, the A-10s deployed in Europe and South Korea and prepared to battle Soviet and North Korean tank armies in the event the Cold War turned hot.
When the Soviet Union began to collapse in 1989, so did the Air Force’s support for the A-10. The flying branch proposed to retire the Warthogs and replace them with F-16s. Then in August 1990, Iraq invaded oil-rich Kuwait and the United States and its allies rushed forces to first defend neighboring Saudi Arabia, and later liberate Kuwait.
X
Endless war
When Operation Desert Storm against Iraq kicked off in January 1991, 144 Warthogs flew a third of all attack missions, accounting for half of all the Iraqi targets the Air Force destroyed. Warthogs even shot down two Iraqi helicopters with their 30-millimeter cannons. In light of the A-10’s success in Desert Storm, the Air Force quietly dropped plans to ground the planes — at least for the time being.
For the A-10, Desert Storm represented the start of a quarter-century of almost uninterrupted combat. Warthogs took part in U.S.-led air campaigns in Bosnia in 1994 and 1995, Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan starting in 2002, Iraq beginning in 2003, Libya in 2011 and Syria starting with the Oct. 31 battle near Hawl.
By all accounts, the pilots who fly the Warthogs and the soldiers and Marines on the ground that the A-10s support love the ungainly plane. Flying low, A-10 pilots can maintain constant visual contact with troops on the ground — an impossible feat for the crews of faster jets. The Warthog also carries enough ammunition to fire its gun for more than 20 seconds straight — five times longer than an F-35 stealth fighter can shoot. Doled out in quick bursts, 20 seconds-worth of ammo can keep an A-10 in the fight for hours.
One intense air-ground battle in Afghanistan on July 24, 2013 illustrated the Warthog’s strengths. Sixty soldiers were on patrol along an Afghan highway when one of their vehicles overturned, forcing the troops to circle up and encamp for the night.
“As the sun rose, the unit began to receive heavy fire from a nearby tree line,” Staff Sergeant Stephenie Wade, an Air Force journalist, reported in a story for the Armed Forces News Service. “The members were pinned behind their vehicles and three of the soldiers suffered injuries. The unit was under fire and the wounded members needed a casualty evacuation so they called for close-air support.”
Two A-10s based at Bagram air base near Kabul raced to assist. When a low-level pass failed to frighten off the attackers, the Warthog pilots took careful aim — and opened fire. “Even with all our [top-of-the-line] tools today, we still rely on visual references,” the lead pilot told Wade. “Once we received general location of the enemy’s position, I rolled in as lead aircraft and fired two rockets to mark the area with smoke. Then my wingman rolled in to shoot the enemy with his 30-millimeter rounds.”
“We train for this, but shooting danger-close is uncomfortable, because now the friendlies are at risk,” the second A-10 pilot said. “We came in for a low-angle strafe, 75 feet above the enemy’s position and used the 30-millimeter gun — 50 meters parallel to ground forces — ensuring our fire was accurate so we didn’t hurt the friendlies.”
After two hours of unrelenting aerial bombardment, the insurgents finally withdrew, leaving behind 18 dead. All the Americans survived and made it back to base. After the pilots landed, they went to the hospital to visit one of wounded soldiers they had helped save.
“He was laying there and next to him was a picture of his high-school girlfriend,” the lead pilot recalled. “We were glad knowing we helped get him home alive. He said, ‘Thank you for shooting those bad guys.'”
X
Out to pasture
But all the praise from ground troops didn’t seem to matter to Air Force leaders. With costs rising for the new F-35 and overall budgets flattening owing in part to the 2011 Budget Control Act, also known as “sequstration,” in late 2013 the flying branch proposed to begin retiring all 300 A-10s remaining in service. They plan to take the last off the flight line in 2019. This despite an continuing program to upgrade the Warthogs’ electronics and weaponry and replace their wings — theoretically extending their usefulness into the 2030s.
The Air Force claimed that grounding the A-10s would save $4 billion over five years that it could then spend on new planes, including F-35s and new bombers and aerial-refueling tankers. Shuttering the Warthog squadrons would also free up hundreds of airmen for other, higher-priority jobs maintaining and flying other aircraft, the flying branch claimed.
“The A-10 and the close-air support mission have always been seen as lower priorities that take money away from favored programs,” said Mandy Smithberger, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, part of the Project On Government Oversight in Washington. [“For the Air Force, it’s not an emotional issue: it’s a sequestration-driven decision,” explained General Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff. “We don’t have enough money last year or this coming year to fund all of the things that we currently have in our force structure.” The Air Force said it would reassign F-15s and F-16s — and eventually F-35s — to support the ground troops.
The flying branch justified the plan to get rid of the A-10 on technological grounds. “Ten years from now, we must be a more modern Air Force,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James told the Washington Post. “We have to buy new [aircraft], and we have to keep advancing the ball on technology so that we stay ahead of our potential adversaries around the world.”
The Government Accountability Office questioned the Air Force’s assertion that retiring the A-10s would save billions of dollars. “The Air Force has not fully assessed the cost savings associated with A-10 divestment or its alternatives,” the agency reported. “Our analysis found that the Air Force’s estimated savings are incomplete.”
Indeed, the brute-simple Warthog costs just $17,000 per flight hour for fuel and maintenance. An F-16 costs $22,000 per hour. An F-35 costs almost double the Warthog — $32,000 per hour. And an F-15 costs even more, roughly $42,000 for every hour it’s in the air. The A-10 is cheap.
And the best at what it does — even if it is old. The F-15 and F-16 lack the A-10’s powerful cannon, capacious ammunition storage, toughness and ability to loiter low over the battlefield. Fast and lightly built, the F-15 and F-16 are best suited for penetrating deep behind enemy lines to quickly drop bombs then escape. They’re also good at engaging enemy aircraft, something a Warthog pilot in his slow-flying plane should seek to avoid.
To make sense of the Air Force’s vendetta against its own warplane, you have to understand the “dominant theory of warfare” inside the service. The Air Force, which is regarded as the most intellectual of the U.S. armed forces, tends to endorse seemingly logical conceptions of war. During World War II, the Air Force believed it could force Germany to surrender by bombing key nodes in its oil, transportation and manufacturing infrastructure. But the German economy proved resilient and, in fact, it took a massive Allied ground assault to defeat the Nazis.
For much of the Cold War, the Air Force’s main job was to plan for, and be prepared to bring about, the end of the human race through nuclear holocaust — an undertaking that, fortunately, has so far proved entirely academic. By contrast, close air support is all about supporting ground forces as they — and not the Air Force — do the decisive work of defeating the enemy, one bloody and chaotic engagement at a time.
Viewed this way, close air support is antithetical to the deepest Air Force traditions. “They don’t understand the nature of the mission,” said Lieutenant Colonel Robert Brown, a retired Warthog pilot. So it’s no wonder service leaders are so eager to dispose of their best warplane for the job.
“Air Force divestment of the A-10 will create potential gaps in close air support,” the Government Accountability Office warned. Worried that the Air Force would take away their key means of solid air cover, soldiers, Marines and frontline Air Force air controllers got organized. They talked to their friends and family members, their government representatives and the media.
A grass-roots community sprang up around the A-10 on social media. The Facebook page for the “Save the A-10″ group quickly got 33,000 likes. Its administrators urged fans to contact lawmakers on key congressional committees.
Reprieve
The public pressure worked. Congress barred the Air Force from retiring A-10s in 2015 and 2016. When the Air Force tried to circumvent the law and cancel $22 million in software upgrades necessary to keep the A-10s flying, a strongly-worded letter from Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), compelled service officials to continue the software work. Air Force leaders responded by fighting a rear-guard action against A-10 proponents. In January 2015, Major General James Post, the deputy chief of Air Combat Command, which oversees most of the Air Force’s A-10s, told airmen that talking to Congress about the Warthog was an act of “treason” as long as the flying branch was trying to retire the plane. Lawmakers were mortified. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), demanded an investigation. Three months later, the Air Force fired Post from his leadership position. At the same time, the Air Force tried to suppress an official documentary video about the A-10 that frontline pilots and controllers had shot in Afghanistan, and which showed Warthogs coming to the aid of troops under heavy enemy fire. Someone leaked the documentary to blogger Tony Carr, a retired 22-year-Air Force veteran, and it quickly racked up tens of thousands of views.
“The service likely strangled this production” Carr wrote, “because the powerful message it conveys would have been inconvenient to narratives insisting the A-10 should be retired.”
The Air Force’s efforts came to naught in any case. Congress refused to budge. And the harder the Air Force pushed against the A-10, the more attention the media lavished on the ugly plane — and the more public support for the Warthog swelled.
In early November, the Air Force appeared to back down. General Herbert Carlisle, the head of Air Combat Command, told reporters that the service was considering moving the Warthog’s retirement date back two or three years. “Keeping around the airplane a bit longer is something that’s being considered based on things as they are today and what we see in the future,” Carlisle said.
It’s not hard to see why the Air Force changed its mind. Besides facing intensive public and congressional opposition, the world is far different — some might say more dangerous — than it was in 2013.
Since then, Russia has invaded Ukraine. Islamic State has advanced across Iraq and Syria. Even while it was plotting to decommission the Warthogs, the Air Force was sending the heavily-armed planes all over the world in response to new crises.
In 2014, A-10s deployed to Kuwait to support U.S.-backed Iraqi troops battling Islamic State in northwestern Syria. Twice in 2015, A-10s toured Eastern Europe as part of the Pentagon’s European Reassurance Initiative — in essence, a U.S. military surge into Europe to bolster resident North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces. And in October, Warthogs deployed to Turkey to cover rebel forces fighting Islamic State in Syria — and proved crucial to the rebels’ victory near Hawl.
Not only do Congress and the American public stand by the unglamorous, venerable attack plane — it’s as if the world, with all its messy, grinding ground wars, conspired to demand the A-10’s continued service.
X

X
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, November 7, 2015

FREE THE PRISONERS LEGALIZE WEED

X
http://www.news-sentinel.com/opinion/The-right-way-to-tackle-prison-ovdercrowding
X
CURE THE FCK OUT OF THEM.
someone has found a way to intrude into pot smokers lives and  steal all their  cash .
X

The right way to tackle prison overcrowding

By recognizing the influence of addiction and mental illness.

Friday, November 06, 2015 8:01 AM
There is a general agreement that our prisoners are overcrowded in part because we give too harsh penalties for some drug offenses and don’t quite know how to handle those with mental illness who get caught up in the criminal justice system.
But there is a right way and a wrong way to address the problem.
The Obama administration’s Justice Department is flirting with the wrong way, or at least a worrisome one. It’s simply releasing 6,000 inmates in one of the largest discharges in American history. In 2014, the Unite States Sentencing Commission reduced the penalties for many nonviolent drug crimes, which can be applied retroactively to many prisoners. That seems to be not very careful.
Indiana is trying something that might be a little more promising. Through its Recovery Works initiative, $30 million will be spent over the next two years for designated agencies that treat felony offenders for mental illness or drug addiction in lieu of their being incarcerated.

X
The Indiana Department of Correction estimates that more than 80 percent of its inmates need substance abuse treatment. The state changed its sentencing laws in recent years to keep low-level felony offenders, many who are sentenced for nonviolent drug crimes, out of state prison.
And a new state law also provides funding for psychiatrists and other mental health providers to treat criminal defendants with mental health needs. Expanded services include forensic treatment, medication management through home visits with probation officers, transitional housing assistance, supportive employment initiatives, case management, detox, community recovery support programs, and new crisis intervention training for law enforcement.
Indiana legislators have tried to address prison overcrowding. Some of the reforms they came up with might help — keeping more low-level offenders at the county level, for example — but could create other problems. Some of them might actually increase the prison population — such as making more offenders serve at least three-quarters of their time instead of just half.
Since legislators can’t get a handle on the number of prisoners, they should agree to creating more prison space. But they won’t do that, either.
Somebody has to take the problem seriously. It looks like someone is.

X
Posted by at No comments:

ANONYMOUS AND THE KKK

X
http://www.news-sentinel.com/news/local/Shameful--expose--of-hood-wearing-public-officials-proves-media-have-earned-public-s-mistrust
X
X
By Kevin Leininger, kleininger@news-sentinel.com
Thursday, November 05, 2015 12:01 AM
According to a recent Gallup Poll, just 40 percent of Americans have "a great deal" or even "a fair amount" of trust that the media will report the news accurately and fairly. And we've just seen a perfect example of why that suspicion is not only justified, but healthy.
No, not the recent Republican Republican presidential debate on CNBC. That was merely the latest case of liberal media bias and, besides, anybody who can't withstand a snarky "gotcha" question shouldn't be given the codes to our nukes or left alone in a room with Vladimir Putin.
This case -- shamefully played out on Fort Wayne TV screens -- was actually much worse, exposing not only the pernicious influence of questionable Internet sources but the willingness of supposedly legitimate news outlets to ignore basic journalistic standards that seem to have gone from sacrosanct to obsolete in the relative blink of an eye (trust in the media was as high as 55 percent in the late 1990s).
The first thing reporters learn, or should, is to know and trust the source of the information they disseminate. Two Fort Wayne TV stations this week, however, reported the rumor that two local politicians just might be members of the Ku Klux Klan even though they had no way to verify the source or the veracity of the "news" they were disseminating.
X
Originally attributed to the Internet "hacktivist" group Anonymous, word was that four U.S. senators and five mayors had been involved in the KKK. The fact that a hacker was later identified as the source, and that Anonymous itself repudiated the allegations, is beside the point. The sorry truth is that some media here and elsewhere reported the most flimsy, vile sort of rumor without offering a shred of proof. Right before an election, too.
The fact that the politicians in question issued all the usual denials is also beside the point. Once a hateful but baseless and anonymous accusation is made, how can anyone really refute it -- especially when you can't identify or question the source?
As a spokesman for one of the smeared politicians correctly noted this week, "Unfortunately, several media outlets and online sources gave these baseless allegations credit . . . Regardless of politics, it is sad to see well-meaning public servants disparaged based on lies and misinformation."
Given recent events in the city clerk's office, this issue is especially timely and important. Even when former city Parking Enforcement Supervisor Colin Keeney brought me proof of misconduct in the office, I did not report the story immediately. In the case of both undercover videos, I took days to review their contents and to gather the necessary supporting information and reaction from Keeney and others. On one occasion I rejected a video entirely because it offered conclusions without providing sufficient documentation.
I wasn't overly concerned about anybody's motives or the pre-election timing. I was very concerned about reporting a legitimate story accurately and fairly. The fact that three people have now resigned indicates the videos' worth. But what kind of investigation did those TV stations do before reporting the officials' alleged Klan connection? More to the point, what kind of investigation was even possible, given the lack of access to the source?
Let's be clear: If somebody brought me a video of those same officials burning a cross at a KKK rally, I would pursue the story. But there is now no reason to believe the allegations are true, and many reasons to believe they are false.
So why report them? I could tell you all about media budget cuts, shrinking staffs and added workload from the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle. But if those and other factors are reasons why journalistic corners are cut, they must never be offered as excuses. The public and even our public officials deserve better, and it really is that simple.
No matter how hard some journalists try to make it sound.
This column is the commentary of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of The News-Sentinel. Email Kevin Leininger at kleininger@news-sentinel.com or call him at 461-8355.
X
X
X
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, September 3, 2015

ALASKA MOUNTAIN HIGH- DENALI/MT MCkINLEY


x
 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=86526
x
X

X
Physically, not too much has changed on Denali, North America’s highest peak. What did change in 2015 is how people describe and measure Alaska’s majestic mountain.
On August 30, 2015, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell announced that the mountain’s official name would be Denali, not Mount McKinley. Restoration of the traditional Koyukon Athabascan name of Denali, which means “the tall one,” resolved a request by former Alaska Gov. Jay Hammond that dates back to 1975.
But the mountain’s name was not the only change. On September 2, its elevation was also revised. The U.S. Geological Survey announced that Denali’s summit had a new, official elevation of 20,310 feet (6,190 meters)—10 feet shorter than surveyors had determined in the 1950s. The mountain has not shrunk. Instead, technology has improved.
The images on this page offer two views of Denali as observed on June 15, 2015, by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8. The natural-color Landsat 8 images were draped over an ASTER-derived Global Digital Elevation Model,which helps show the topography of the area.
Denali’s two major summits are visible in the images. The south peak is the higher of the two, and was the focus of the new survey supported by USGS, NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey, and the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Surveyors flew from Talkeetna Airport, near the entrance of Denali National Park, onto the Kahiltna Glacier, visible just west of the peak in the bottom image. (Note that north is pointed down in both images.) From there, the team of GPS experts and mountaineers began their ascent; they reached the summit in on June 24, 2015, according to a USGS feature story.
The new, more precise elevation measurement was made with modern GPS survey equipment, combined with improved gravity data to better approximate the geoid (and where the elevation is determined to be zero). The scientists also had to consider variables such as the depth of the snowpack.
Once the data were processed and analyzed, the new elevation that emerged was 20,310 feet (6,190 meters). That’s slightly less than the elevation reported in 1952 by surveyors who climbed the mountain: 20,320 feet (6,193 meters).
Both of those numbers vary from the elevation of 20,237 feet (6,168 meters) reported in 2013. That elevation was estimated from airborne Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data, which calculated the average height across a 269-square-foot (25-square-meter) area around the summit—not Denali’s highest point. InSAR is useful for collecting data in areas that are a challenge to map, but are not intended to provide a precise measurement from the summit.
NASA Earth Observatory images by Joshua Stevens (top) and Jesse Allen (bottom), using ASTER GDEM data from NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team, and Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey. Caption by Kathryn Hansen.
Instrument(s): 
Terra - ASTER
Landsat 8 - OLI

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

FORT WAYNE- PERMANENT BACKWATER pt 1

X
https://www.facebook.com/GinaMBurgess/posts/10207369848589268

X
Gina Burgess
Yesterday at 8:49am · 
BUYERS BEWARE— IS THE DOWNTOWN ARENA STUDY FLAWED? I have been waiting patiently for the past month for the Mayor’s Downtown Arena Study Committee, as headed up by Chuck Surack, to release their findings or at least to give a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” assessment. During that time, I’ve read all 36 pages of the Downtown Arena Executive Summary and the 188 pages of the Downtown Arena Study, as prepared by Hunden Strategic Partners, the same folks who were used to garner public support for the most recent expansion of the Grand Wayne Convention Center. [1][2][3]
After my review of all documents, it’s become painfully clear that this “study” is nothing more than paid propaganda aimed at providing evidence that a new “Downtown arena” would be feasible and, of course, anything that is Downtown and “feasible” is good for all this so-called Downtown “economic development.” Now, some of you may think my assessment is jaded and to my doubters I cordially invite you to read through these documents first-hand. Any good-faith review is going to reveal the following:
1. The study was conducted by Hunden Strategic Partners (HSP), the same folks who have performed similar work in the past to provide evidence that the Grand Wayne Center expansion was necessary. (I’ll have more on this company tomorrow with plenty of references.)
2. HSP’s main theme throughout the study is that a stadium is needed to bring events to Downtown during the winter months. That the purpose of these events is to provide needed pedestrian traffic to existing and developing restaurant and retailers, which need year-round demand to survive. Do you understand what is happening here? The Henry administration (backed by Harper and the rest of City Council, supported by DID, Greater Fort Wayne, etc) “sells” the idea to the public that there is enough pre-existing interest in Downtown to support building a new stadium when in reality a new stadium is needed to support Downtown “economic development” projects. Sincerely, this is darn-near textbook “bait and switch.”
3. HSP fails to acknowledge the Grand Wayne Center as having the flexibility to act as an entertainment venue, but oddly enough recognizes C2C Music Hall. Folks—anyone who has been to a HolidayFest concert at the Grand Wayne Center knows it has the capability of doubling as an “entertainment venue.”
4. HSP’s report is dependent upon and assumes that the area’s largest employers will remain in the area. Ironically, that includes Vera Bradley who downsized their workforce just this past year, sending jobs overseas to China.
5. HSP tries to position a new Downtown arena as an alternative venue to the Coliseum, but admits that the new arena would be a competitor of the Coliseum. In an effort to emphasize what appears to be a manufactured need, the HSP survey claims that the Mad Ants and the Derby Girls are not satisfied with the Coliseum. Personally, that is a hard sell given the reality that neither of these organizations would be in existence today without the Coliseum. And really, just what exactly is the extent of their “not being satisfied”?
6. HSP makes some really bad assumptions throughout their report. One of the claims is their acknowledgement that Fort Wayne residents travel to Indy, South Bend, and elsewhere for events, which is then followed by a gross assumption that if a comparative event venue were built in Fort Wayne for similar sporting events, entertainment acts, etc. that residents from Indy, South Bend and elsewhere would travel to Fort Wayne. Seriously, what were these guys smoking? That’s like saying someone who lives in Florida near Walt Disney World is going to go out of their way to visit Indiana Beach. Do you really think that is going to happen?
7. HSP then goes on to compare other arenas, but the comparisons are nearly all faulty. Of the 6 arenas being “compared,” only one arena was proper. That arena was the Budweiser Event Center in Loveland, Colorado. Why was that the only appropriate comparison? Because of the 6 communities compared—Loveland was the closest in population and demographics to Fort Wayne.
8. HSP also tries to make the argument that it would be good if Fort Wayne was on the first itinerary of major events, but then as it clumsily tries to explain how a Downtown arena would not be in competition with the Coliseum (and simultaneously in competition with the Coliseum)—HSP actually makes a solid counterpoint to its own argument. How? HSP affirms that by not being on the “first itinerary,” Fort Wayne is actually able to capitalize on that position by taking advantage of “off days” of major touring acts. Interestingly, the only “first itinerary” venue in all of Indiana is the Banker’s Life Fieldhouse. This means none of the other venues in Indianapolis and none of the venues in South Bend are “first itinerary” venues. That’s not too uncommon as most states only have one “first itinerary” town. So, of course, this begs the question---with most States only have one “first itinerary” town and Indianapolis being that designated location here in Indiana, just what the heck are we trying to do??? Besides setting ourselves up for a financial failure by building a stadium that won’t be able to support itself?
9. HSP advocates a design that would primarily benefit the Mad Ants and create “opportunities” for NBA exhibition events---like the kind already being hosted at the Coliseum---and touts the possibility of Fort Wayne hosting the NCAA play-off games. What? First, do you really think Indy is going to give THAT up without a fight? Secondly, why would the NCAA look at Fort Wayne, when they can look to larger cities like Indy, Cleveland and Chicago—all within a few hours drive and a half hour flight from Fort Wayne? Please don’t get me wrong---I’m all for Fort Wayne trying to bring in more conventions, tournaments, etc. to boost local tourism, but we need to focus on a obtaining a consistent stream of well-known mid-size events so that our local tourism industry can gain the experience needed to manage a larger event of NCAA caliber. Otherwise, we set ourselves up to be a one horse town.
10. HSP admits the cost of building a stadium is significant, admits that the local economy is weak and cyclical (true story, check it out), and that this venue would be in direct competition with the Coliseum. But then it goes on to discuss a “management fee” of $200,000+ a year and how this “management fee” DOES NOT INCLUDE the salary or benefits of the permanent staff, the arena’s utilities, or maintenance. So just what does this “management fee” cover? Nothing except lining for someone’s pockets. (Same thing is happening with Parkview Field as has happened with other private-public partnership projects of the past. Remember the Public Safety Academy??) Worse, HSP admits to a NET OPERATING DEFICIT of $231,000 (year 1) and how that deficit will actually GROW to become $817,000 (year 10). And---really can’t believe there is an “and” here---AND the naming rights is being counted as REVENUE instead of just being a typical fundraising catalyst to help pay off the initial debt service. (At least Parkview’s naming rights of Parkview Field went to help pay down the initial debt service. So what are we doing here??)
11. Now, for all of you optimists out there who still want to believe that all this “downtown development” is a good thing…good for the economy, good for job creation, etc.---Please, please, please read through the study. HSP admits that a Downtown arena could….COULD (as in not definitely, but perhaps maybe)…create up to 196 full-time EQUIVALENT jobs. That’s not permanent jobs. That’s not full-time jobs. That is full-time “equivalent” jobs---meaning multiple part-time jobs that will most likely be minimum wage. Worse, HSP admits that these jobs will be created by the Downtown stadium project, but that these jobs will not be onsite. So, just where will these jobs be? Well, with the recommended location being beside the Grand Wayne Center, between the other recent public-private partnership projects of the Downtown Library (recently expanded) and Parkview Field (recently built)—after eliminating Taco Bell, Rally’s and King Gyros (or about 196 full-time “equivalent” jobs)—these jobs are likely to come from the 3 street level restaurants being recommended as part of the Downtown arena project. But isn’t that onsite? Yes it is….and probably indicative of yet another textbook “bait and switch.” Alternatively, this proposed site is also right next to the up-and-being-developed Ash “Cash & Slash” Brokerage site—which originally promised 200 non-descript jobs. Hhhhmm….???
Folks, as of December 31, 2014, Fort Wayne’s debt load was $754,641,718. This project is already reporting significant operating deficits---just like all the municipally-owned parking garages and most of the other Downtown development projects. The project touts the creation of 196 full-time “equivalent” jobs, but doesn’t come clean on the fact that it will be displacing about 196 full-time “equivalent” workers. Besides getting in debt, creating another project that will have to be taxpayer subsidized directly (and indirectly---utilities, maintenance, security, etc.), what exactly are we doing here??
Whatever you view—whether you agree with this project or disagree with this project, please take some time and read through the study for yourself. See for yourself whether you find this study to be as flawed as I did.
_______
SOURCES:
Like   
  • You, Dean Robinson, Kenneth White Jnr and 9 others like this.
  • Bill Bean Thanks for the links.
    Like · 3 · Yesterday at 8:59am
  • Cedrick K. Tinker I work with the company that is updated the Coliseum and I tell them ever day they in the works of building a downtown arena.
    Like · Yesterday at 9:18am
  • Evert Mol The Ants and roller derby don't like the Coliseum because the sparse crowds in a large arena make their product look bad. The question is the financial impact on the taxpayers. We don't even know what the ultimate impact of the ballpark is on our pocketbooks and probably never will since it's been declared a great success.
    Unlike · 1 · Yesterday at 9:41am
    • Gina Burgess If you read the arena survey, they admit to an operational deficit that grows over the course of ten years. The deficit starts in Year 1 at a $231,000 deficit and then grows to a $817,000 deficit by Year 10. Sincerely, its in the survey. Please read it.
      Like · Yesterday at 10:23am
  • Dean Robinson "The Mad Ants and Derby Girls are not satisfied." That is absolutely hilarious! Taking on Chuck "Sweetman" Surack is risky business He is Fort Wayne's new Keith Busse.
    Unlike · 1 · Yesterday at 10:53am
    • Gina Burgess Chuck Surack is a nice guy, but these guys (Surack included) take turns being cheerleaders for the local economic initiative du jour. The "cheerleaders" follow a pattern--a significant campaign contribution to the Mayor (directly and indirectly through Carson Boxberger), an appointment to the head of a task force/commission/committee, press conference/news release touting their appointment and what a good outstanding citizen the cheerleader is, and then depending on the amount of the campaign contributions, the value of the initiative being "studied", etc that determines whether or not you get a Mad Anthony's Red Coat. 

      Sincerely, I am not even being facetious---look at the past decade of Red Coat winners and cross reference their campaign donations and the public initiative du jour. These guys need the media to promote and sell this propaganda to the public but once its online, its very hard to retract and control it. At some point, they are going to realize that in the digital era--info is a two way street and that they only have control over one part of that two way street. Or they could try this newfangled concept of just being honest about what they are trying to---most of which stems from the need to CYA over past mistakes and bad choices. 

      Besides, at the end of the day, my issue isn't with the people that finance the political machines. Most of these guys have corporate interests and making money is what corporations do. I can't even fault them for taking the easy and locally bery lucrative way of using taxpayer money. I just wish these guys would step back, re-evaluate the amount of money they spend on "pay-to-play" politics and crunch the numbers. Sure, they get all these so-called economic development incentives, but what if they didn't have to pay through the nose and multiple layers of government for those incentives. I'm betting anything that their cost savings would either cancel out the "pay-to-play" expenditures or may even garner them more profit if they took out the "pay-to-play" middleman....and hence, may not even need the "incentives." 

      Many of these movers and shakers are good guys, have family and friends in this town, attend church and are active in the community---some of its sincere and real, some is to carefully craft a respectable public image. But at the end of the day, they don't want to see this town and the people in this town hurt. But for some reason, they just can't shake the whole "pay-to-play" system that demands taxpayers subsidize non-sustainable public projects.
      Like · Yesterday at 3:06pm
  • Dean Robinson I wouldn't say the study is flawed. It will provide the local advertising-supported "news" media with the proper cheerleading points. The regular rogues gallery of corporate partners will keep pumping sponsorship and advertising dollars through local arts and culture events to make all the private partners look great (Hanning & Bean notwithstanding). This is how public-private partnerships work. There are no mistakes here.
    Like · Yesterday at 10:59am
  • Russell Mcnutt The question should be what new events will it bring RV shows, concerts gun shows pet shows ect. Will they have shows that bring people to the Fort. That's your revenue. Doesn't matter if local companies down size. You're not after local folks you're after out of Townes, day trippers make them stop at Fort Wayne between going from Chicago to Indianapolis or Bloomington 
    I've been living and my wife works in a tourist state and towns in AZ and NM. The locals work the events shops ect out if towners spend
    Will the arena attract out of town people to come and spend money That should decide if it's worth it or not
    It doesn't sound like it right now.....how much do mad ants and derby chicks bring from out of town
    Ok I'm going to step out and take a risk of hate mail
    I've lived and worked in tourist towns my wife runs a tourist based store I've been everywhere in this country and I love to visit places for different reasons and I've observed states grow and others fail
    If Fort Wayne wanted to improve income to the city, bring business and thrive......
    They would take the stick out and build one casino downtown and one outside of town different types of folks
    Towns explode revenue wise. While dad is gaming mom is shopping. While kids are watching derby chicks parents are gambling. They eat out stay at motels. The boys go to colts games the girls gamble 
    It employs the heck out of locals
    Business improves
    Crime doesn't sky rocket
    You need unarmed security that's called job creation 
    AZ, NV, NM are laughing all the way to the bank
    You'd even fill up those rooms downtown 
    Dad gambles mom and kids go to grand Wayne they buy gas...., they break down need mechanics and yes some may break a law and the folks there know how to make money off crime
    Ok, done with that rant😎
    Like · 3 · Yesterday at 11:11am
    • Gina Burgess The only way for the Downtown arena to attract out-of-town events is for the Coliseum to shut down. There's so much entertainment venue competition now that local venues are already cannibalizing each other. When Parkview Field first opened, it mimicked whatever events were happening at Headwaters Park and began drawing some of the events away from Headwaters Park, like County Fest. In addition to Parkview Field, you have the Coliseum, the Embassy, Come2Go Music Hall, Foellinger Theater, Spiece Fieldhouse, the Plex, and the various facilities at IPFW, Indiana Tech, Ivy Tech, University of St. Francis, etc. 

      Locally, we are flooded with entertainment venues, sporting venues, retail operations and restaurants. And our local economy can't support all of this. But we keep building and building because the cold, hard reality is that if we stop building then economically--Fort Wayne is right back to the days of Harvester. The even colder and harder reality is that the City is so saturated that we are nearing the point of implosion. That's why the City is trying to get everyone to buy into the whole regional cities initiative thing as well as the whole "Road to One Million" initiative that is being touted to try to attract more residents to the Greater Fort Wayne area. Why? Because in the good old days, the City could hide its runaway spending and ever-increasing ferocious appetite by annexing parts of Allen County. But now, to stay afloat--it literally needs more tax revenue than there are people in Allen County able to pay the kind of tax revenue needed. 

      In fairness to the current and past Administrations, this problem has been on the horizon since Harvester's pull-out in the early 80's. At that time, Win Moses was Mayor and he was faced with record flooding, pre-Reagan recession economics, and the area's biggest employer leaving. In a very desperate attempt---and note that I am not criticizing him here as Moses was in a no-win situation---in a very desperate attempt to stabilize the local economy and try to fill in the void left by Harvester, Moses turned to construction. Hence, the erection of One Summit Square (now known as the Indiana Michigan Power Center). Unable to bring another employer to the Greater Fort Wayne area as large as Harvester and unable to stop the flow of other larger manufacturers from leaving the area (i.e. Magnavox, GE, etc), City Administrations have relied on construction jobs to fill in the voids. The most lucrative, massive, and biggest job creators are public-private construction, such as the Public Safety Academy, the erection of the Grand Wayne Center and later its expansion, the erection and demolition and expanded erection of the Downtown library, Parkview Field, Harrison Square, Ash Brokerage, Cityscape Flats, countless parking garages and the list just goes on and on and on. 

      This kind of continued development cannot be sustained. Local taxes keep rising and that limits the amount of money local residents have to spend. Less money in the local economy means less jobs can be sustained in other sectors. Less jobs means lower incomes. Lower incomes means even less money to spend. The cycle has played itself out so dramatically that retail and restaurants outside of Downtown and Jefferson Pointe are going out of business. Coliseum Blvd has seen a dramatic drop in businesses. Empty big box stores litter Fort Wayne. Shopping centers and strip malls all over the City have vacancies--and in some cases, the whole strip mall is empty. Even Glenbrook Mall has been impacted---if it wasn't for holiday shoppers, its very likely that this mall would close down too. For the past few years, its had trouble paying its property taxes, has fallen behind on basic repairs and general maintenance.

      Now to be fair, there are pockets of successful development that dots Fort Wayne's landscape, but if you compare the success stories with the economic failures---you'll see that Fort Wayne is positioned to go the way of Detroit or Gary if something doesn't change. The Administration is banking on the Governor's regional cities initiative. Personally, I think that is a pipe dream because it doesn't address the underlying problem--it simply continues to mask it.
      Unlike · 1 · Yesterday at 2:45pm
  • Dean Robinson Indiana doesn't do well with casinos. One bankrupt casino operation bought another bankrupt casino operation within the last couple of years in the Hoosier state. Casinos tend to encourage certain crimes and vices other than gambling. This is not hate mail, Russell Mcnutt. We are open to ideas other than turning Fort Wayne into Pottersville.
    Like · 1 · Yesterday at 12:01pm
  • Dean Robinson Feel free to Google "Indiana Grand," "Indiana Live," and - my personal favorite - "Gregory Rayburn."
    Like · Yesterday at 12:05pm
  • Russell Mcnutt I've seen it work
    The Navijo Nation is rich
    I bet the Casino going bankrupt because of management 
    I fuss the way to find out is.....if possible find out how many people leave Indiana on the weekends to go to Chicago and MI to gamble. How many people leave Ohio travel through Indiana 
    You get the point
    On the 20 east leaving Texas on Friday night going to LA to gamble the traffic is at a stop for hours then the opposite on Sunday night and worse on holiday weekend 
    Texas saw that money leaving and is getting ready to build 
    As you said it was a suggestion 
    If a group of independent people or a group of both parties done research and asked some of these thriving cities and spoke to the Navijo nation I bet the results would be interesting 
    It would be hard to keep the politicians out. The tax revenue from the casinos would pay for areana. Here's a question. The casinos that failed were they the horse ones....they don't work. Need the machines the slots ect ....the cards
    Like · 1 · Yesterday at 12:32pm
    • Gina Burgess In 2009-2010, Henry tried to get a casino referendum on the ballot, but that initiative failed at the State house due to the large amount of opposition that came from key stakeholders, namely conservative church-going right-to-lifers Fort Wayne residents (aka Republicans) and other existing casinos who rely on Fort Wayne residents for their profitable operations (namely those in the Chicago/South Bend area). Indiana has 11 casinos--8 are river based, 2 are "racinos", and 1 is land-based. The most successful casinos tend to be river based and located on or near state lines. 

      Regionally, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians has been pushing for a tribal casino. However, they want to base it in the South Bend area too. The Indiana State legislature has been somewhat resistant to the idea---I'm guessing due to the interest of the same stakeholders that thwarted Henry's casino attempts.

      Economically, a casino or two makes sense. Socially, however, it totally doesn't. Fort Wayne prides itself on being the City of Churches---you can't have "sinners" openly play where "saint" congregate. With gambling comes other vices, like alcohol, drugs and carnal entertainment and with that trifecta comes sex and with sex comes unwanted pregnancies and with unwanted pregnancies comes abortions from amoral women and if those conservative church-going right-to-lifers aren't there to stop it all then the very fabric of Allen County's social moral compass is at risk (as well as the house of cards political propaganda machine). Sincerely and somewhat humorously--the one thing that could probably fix some of the Fort's economic woes can't fix the economic woes without cutting off the political arm of the right to life crowd. Decisions, decisions---make money or lose political power. Truly, couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of hypocrites. wink emoticon
      Unlike · 2 · Yesterday at 2:17pm
    • Russell Mcnutt Thanks Gina Burgess I didn't know about the other casinos 
      I did know about the reasons Indiana won't go all in that's the stick...lol
      Funny the number one industry in America is porn....get over it churches. All the red X's as you drive down any interstate in America. 
      Thanks for info. I know that stick will stay firmly in place for a long time
      Like · 1 · Yesterday at 2:28pm
    • Mark Garvin Forget a casino in Fort Wayne,; it will never happen. Indianapolis desperately wants a casino because the bloviated egos running that City think a casino is all that is needed to make Indy a tourist, vacation, convention paradise, and blame the absence of such a paradise on the failure to bring in gaming. The rest of the State won't give Indy a casino because the good residents of Indy feed the other gaming sites. Allowing a casino in Fort wayne further defeats Indy's dream. Talking about a casino here is a waste of time.
      Unlike · 3 · Yesterday at 3:41pm
    • Gina Burgess Mark Garvin -- In fairness, we should at least acknowledge Hoosier Park Racing and Casino. While not in Indianapolis, Anderson is close enough. So, a casino could happen in Fort Wayne, but I do agree with your assessment that it is rather unlikely.
      Unlike · 1 · 23 hrs
  • Russell Mcnutt Guess not fuss.....lol
    Like · Yesterday at 12:33pm

X
X
X

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)