WE Blog

How long will it be until someone (JWink?) gets on this thread and rails against the arena?

“kelly” –

See, and this is what I don’t get about the Republic Party people in the legislature.

There’s only one reason I can come up with for the State Park entrance-fee elimination. That certainly isn’t *that* big a revenue source is it? The Republic Party voted against it only because Governor Sebelius proposed it.

Apophis: I don’t have time this morning to “rail” against the downtown arena. Suffice it to say, it will join Alaska’s “Bridge to No Where” as one of the worst expenditures of public funds ever made in America. And in this case by a local government unit. Knowing what I know about you, you should be out carrying a sign opposing the arena also. Its an affront to all middle class citizens of Wichita and Sedgwick County who wanted to make our area a better place to live for our citizens and future generations.

21

I agree Ben. There seems to be a lot more here than merely concerns about crime.

The real crime is that many of these property owners adjacent to the river use the river as their private dump. Some of the property is in horrible shape.

40-50 years ago I floated sections of the Walnut and Arkansas rivers and dumping old construction materials on the banks was common.

The Arkansas river belongs to all of us. Refusing to allow public access is the only criminal activity I detect.

21 access points will require the necessity of monitored patrol.

Perhaps there will be a Wichita “Coast Guard.” A nice 16 footer with an inboard engine and fishing well would be nice. Of course, an annoying siren with flashing blue and red lights as well.

The total length involved is about 100 miles across three counties. A number of cities are also involved. The concept is NOT some ’super-government’ agency running the show – it is instead a mix of local governments and private. The idea of the ARCAP was to bring together diverse interests into one package.

For example, there is one possible additional point south of Wichita on private land. The landowner is considering the possibility of renting campsites to boaters. We like this idea – an entrepeneur working with us and benefiting from his investment. Similarly a small community with a restaurant can benefit. That is why many of those involved came from economic development departments rather than only parks departments.

Eminent domain wouldn’t be necessary because the river is not owned by private property owners. I think all the access points are designed to be on public property, or private property where access can be negotiated.

While I would love to see more access to the river, I can see some of the objections. There have been property owners in Colorado tied up in court for years because of problems with rafters. They have had vandalism, littering, destruction, etc., on their property from people rafting down the various rivers.

Just takes a few “partyers” to ruin it for everyone.

Justice William O. Douglas used to describe arguments that predicted all kinds of evils that might follow certain changes in the law as the “parade of imaginary horrors.” I understand that some property owners – even though they don’t own the river – might fear misuse of their shorelines by trespassers, but there is so little public land – or water – for citizens to enjoy in Kansas. Governmental entities need to assist in the location and creation of more opportunities like this. Otherwise, these citizens will take their dollars, their jobs, their homes and the taxes they pay to some other state. We need to listen to the NIMBYs, and do what we can to solve their objections or lessen their fears, but we cannot continue to thrive as an economy if we frustrate progress.

Just put the river access at bridge points. It’s city/county property. That way you don’t infringe on the rights of property owners.