Arkansas Blog: And here comes the pitch ....

Proposals for use of Ray Winder Field, the former minor league baseball park in War Memorial Park, are headed to the Little Rock Board of Directors, where sentiment is split. It will be a political process. The Zoo would like the land. UAMS was recommended by an ad hoc study group. A youth baseball proposal also was made.

UAMS has begun its campaign. A letter to friends, on the jump, outlines its case.

I heard the same arguments Friday from campus officials and I do not discount them. But I'll repeat myself: UAMS is a nearly unbelievable economic contributor to the city -- I don't think I exaggerate when I say as much as 10 percent of the city's population may depend on direct or indirect employment and spending by the campus. It contributes more than just money. It contributes public works, education, a staff important in its contributions to more than medicine, a worldwide reputation.

UAMS also happens to be at ground zero of a decision that will say something about the soul of this city. The question: Is there any value in the city that doesn't fall to money? You might say that question is unfair here, given the particular parcel of land and the particular bid to use it. But if this case can't be fairly seen as a symbol for the resolution of all future conflicts between green space and development, what concrete assurances are on offer -- and believable -- that we should see it otherwise.

To Our UAMS Friends and Supporters:

A special advisory board recently recommended that the Little Rock City Board sell its portion of Ray Winder Field to UAMS. About half of the almost seven-acre field is owned by the city and the other half is owned by the Arkansas State Hospital. Other groups asked the advisory panel to recommend that the city’s share of the property be used for two other worthwhile causes, youth baseball and the Little Rock Zoo.

I presented UAMS’ proposal to the city advisory panel and was joined by two prominent Arkansans, Jimmy Moses and Jerry Adams, both of whom supported our bid as the best thing for the economic vitality of the city and the health care of Arkansans.

The Little Rock City Board will vote soon on the advisory panel’s recommendation. This has been and will likely continue to be in the news. As a valued supporter of UAMS and its missions, I wanted you to know our rationale for bidding on this property.

As the state’s only academic medical center, UAMS has experienced enormous growth since 1985. In that time our employee count has grown from 3,881 to 10,236. More than 8,700 of our employees work in Little Rock and almost 5,000 live here. In the last eight years, the student population in our five colleges and graduate school has grown from about 1,850 to almost 2,700. We have committed to increasing our class sizes even more as the demand for physicians, nurses and other health care professionals increases with the aging of the baby boomers. In the last four years, we have experienced patient growth of 18 percent. UAMS receives more than $265 million annually in payments from patients outside of Arkansas. Patients come to UAMS from every county in Arkansas, every state in the union and many foreign countries. Thanks to the outstanding research done by members of our faculty, federal research dollars have increased to more than $60 million per year. All of this revenue stays in Arkansas.

The growth UAMS has experienced and the advances that growth has allowed us to make in fighting and treating disease have helped us attract and keep world-renowned faculty members. It has also allowed us to have a direct impact on the economy of the city and state through annual revenue of more than $1.1 billion and more than 270 new jobs created at local companies formed through UAMS BioVentures.

If UAMS’ clinical, education and research programs are to keep pace with the future needs of the people of Little Rock and Arkansas, they must continue to grow and thrive. But without adequate space, they won’t be able to do that. UAMS is landlocked on the west by the State Hospital and the Department of Health, on the north by Markham and on the south by I-630. We could expand to the east but only by encroaching on surrounding neighborhoods and buying up houses, one by one. We don’t want to do that because it would hurt the neighborhood and the city by removing existing homes from its tax base. The Ray Winder land is part of the last potential piece of property close to our campus.

Much has been made in the news about plans to turn that property into a parking lot. I assure you this is not the long-term plan for that property. While I don’t have a crystal ball and can’t tell you for sure what the ultimate use for Ray Winder will be, there are many, many possibilities. Those include a new institute, a continuing education building, a dental school, a biotechnology corridor, a center for public-private research collaboration or lodging for patients.

We hired an appraiser and a hazards expert to evaluate the Ray Winder property. They told us the current structure is full of lead paint and other hazards and is unusable in its current state. Because we appreciate the historical significance of the property we have made the commitment to preserve the scoreboard and other parts of the field for a future commemorative display. We have also offered to let youth baseball proponents use the stadium until we need the property, if they are willing to make modifications needed to make it safe.

This will be my last few months as chancellor. The candidates for my position, by all accounts, are wonderful and have the potential to build on what Chancellor Harry Ward began and so many of us have contributed to over the last 30 years.
UAMS plays a leading role in the Little Rock economy. It is committed to improving the health of Arkansans. Ours is an industry that isn’t in jeopardy of leaving the state. But it is one that must be nurtured and have the opportunity to expand. We hope the city board will agree and accept the recommendation of the advisory panel. Please support our position and, if possible, communicate your opinion to our city directors.

Sincerely,
I. Dodd Wilson, M.D. Chancellor, UAMS

Comments

What the hell does that fellow mean?

Is he making a veiled threat that if LR doesn't sell the land thaey might go elsewhere?

DOES THAT FOOL NOTICE THAT HIS PAYCHECK IS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS????????

Why doesn't he go threaten the State Hospital? Go take over their land! It is CLOSER TO CAMPUS! It actually TOUCHES UAMS.

Ask Governor Beebe about your "suttle" threat to move UAMS out of state. Where to Mexico? Then over paid Chancellors can be paid 50 pesos a day!

Posted by: Citizen1 | February 9, 2009 04:57 PM

May I ask a question? Does the zoo survive financially on donations, or does it also get taxpayer support? I'm asking because I honestly don't know.

I think both UAMS and the zoo have legitimate uses for the property. As Max said, UAMS is a major employer in Little Rock, but I enjoy taking my kids to the zoo as well.

Posted by: Slingerland | February 9, 2009 05:14 PM

Well UAMS only lays out part of the plan. They realize they have screwed up all the roads around the immediate campust. They want a new entrance to the campus. Maybe a new exit at Jonesboro. Ooops, would have to have some land to do that. Oh.......Ray Winder.

Do you really think a couple of hundred new parking spaces a half mile from the hospital is a good solution?

Do like every major hospital complex in the nation. Build a parking deck. If that isn't enough, build more bigger ones.

"But decks cost a lot of money, if would be cheaper just to pave the park"

Posted by: mudturtle | February 9, 2009 05:48 PM

Metroplan is going to study rail and rapid bus transit in the I 630 corridor as part of the deal to spend millions on the i 430 i 630 interchange. With parking deck costs exceeding $10,000 per space, is it all that far-fetched to ask UAMS to roll up their sleeves with Metroplan and their consultant to see if UAMS can expand patient care facilities by making better use of land devoted to or planned for parking

Posted by: Sanford | February 9, 2009 06:37 PM

The City will pull down its pants for any laundry or car wash or box store or strip mall anytime, anywhere. To suggest there is a question of their moral terpitude is just silly. UAMS, the doctor's paradise, is equally arrogant and infallible. Neither has shown any apptitude for planning, both are clearly a mess. Saving an old derilick for high school baseball is only a bit sillier than thinging our poor zoo has any business with more space. All of these issues deserve real interest. To suggest that they are somehow competing for the high ground is truly laughable.

Posted by: GeorgeRastasPeabodyIII | February 9, 2009 07:43 PM

The point most are missing is that the City has made it clear that whatever money it gets from the sale of Ray Winder will be used to extend or improve War Memorial Park. Taking the park south of I-630 will serve a greater purpose. It will bring communities together. Big upside to selling land locked Ray Winder for an opportunity to extend WMP south of the I-630. Park, library, research centers will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.

Posted by: mouthinfreely | February 9, 2009 08:37 PM

I'm sorry but I am still in the camp that thinks we should save old ballparks and let kids play baseball. We don't have enough of them in this town and I guarantee that in my lifetime I will never see the city of Little Rock build one.

Posted by: Goof | February 9, 2009 09:00 PM

Why can't a parking deck be built next to War Memorial? State wants to give them 5 million. We are short of baseball fields. If lead is a problem gosh think of all those other public buildings that have it as well. Central High, The Capitol, War Memorial. All buildings built before 1978. The Zoo. Why don't we just build the Zoo on top of the freeway so we can look at the animals in thier natural setting. I realize the Zoo was built first. But really do you think being in a cage next to a freeway is calming. Move the Zoo to the old coleman dairy. Use the money that Sharon Priest thinks she can get for MacArthur Park (15 million). Another park next to two interstates. What kind of parks are we raisng here. Maybe put a vet school where the zoo is. Chickens and cows are big part of our economy. This could still be part of the Dr School. The baseball field should be saved. figure out a way to WPA the Zoo at Coleman Creek. We are in a depression. Might be a good shot in the arm for the UALR Neighbor hood. How about some soccer fields in the dairy land too. Seems to be a great hispanic world being built around this area. What happened to the land we bought out west for a park that was too rocky.

Posted by: Derekeli | February 9, 2009 09:49 PM

I agree with Max. This decision is a threshold decision for the soul of this City. It is a lot more than UAMS vs. Zoo (or baseball), although I still believe that most objective viewpoints (and most any other city in this country) would decide in favor of the zoo (and at least in favor of green space) in this situation.
This decision is first and foremost about responsible, open and transparent leadership. Do the business of the people, in the open, for the citizens you represent. Plain and simple.
Second, do what is in the best interest of the city and its long-term planning. City "leaders" think and behave as though this is about them. It isn't. They are temporary custodians with an obligation to do right for the future generations that will inhabit this place. Paving paradise and putting up a parking lot is not a decision about which the jury is still out - even if the parking lot might become something different. You don't pave landlocked green space without losing some of what you are.
Third, this is about not insulting citizens. Just because these dear city "leaders" don't go to the zoo or personally care much about it, that doesn't negate the fact that the citizens of this community and this state (and their visitors) make it the top visitor destination of this city. So they can't just ignore the fact that the zoo has been identified as a cherished priority by the citizens who voted these people into office. And if you aren't going to make the objectively reasonable decision, don't try to pacify its proponents with a generic, noncommittal (BS) passing reference to expanding over six lanes of highway into land that the City doesn't own "in the future" - yeah right. If nothing else, the citizens of this community should be outraged that their city "leaders" believe they can get away with such a crock without any specifics, time lines or explanations on exactly how they'll pull that off, and with what money (particularly when they're saying that the cost of taking care of Ray Winder is an issue right now - but it isn't for over the highway expansion? Come on! We aren't the idiots you take us for!). If you're serious about the zoo, offer a real zoo solution, with a workable plan, a budget and a time line. Otherwise stop insulting us.
As to the merits of UAMS...expand all you want...over the highway (hey, if it is good enough for the zoo!) or onto the land of the condemned motel or onto any of the other lots that won't take away from existing green/park space. UAMS created much of its problems (yes, that's on YOU Dodd and friends). Hurst, Dailey, Stodola and the whole lot are in the pocket of the developers and the limited special interests in this town. Moore just sits back saying "Parks Commission, what Parks Commission? I don't know anything about a Parks Commission!") I wonder if there is anyone left who believes in serving the public that elects them. I suppose we'll find out.
Little Rock's leaders talk a big game about the future of this city, priorities and making a difference but their actions of placating the established power structure at the expense of responsible planning and truly inclusive solutions speak so much louder than their words.
I just hope every one of the opponents of each of these "leaders" take them to the cleaners next time around.
Speak up Little Rock! These people work for YOU! Make them do their jobs, not the work of special interests.

Posted by: BeThoughtful | February 9, 2009 11:10 PM

Okay. I'll bite.

"Threshold decision for the soul of this City." Couldn't agree more.

Help me over the hump, here.

1) We've got valuable commercial land versus confined sentient animals on that same valuable land. What's the priority?

2) We can NEVER realistically compete for a "world-class" zoo because we don't have the funds. Never have had and never will. What's the point?

3) Arkansas can't afford to pave its roads or educate its kids, much less humanely house and care for, or breed, wild animals. What's the priority?

4) There are FEW cities in the world that tourists or scientists visit for the "Zoo." San Diego is one. Memphis isn't. Little Rock isn't. People and scientists visit smaller cities, if at all, for other reasons (Graceland, the Clinton Library, to add to their CVs). Zoos? Incidentally visited. What's the priority and what's the point?

5) Where does Compassion (the "soul of this City") overtake Commercialism?

a. Our zoo's gross revenues barely (if that) pay for the staff salaries and animal feeding and upkeep and care of the zoo. Look at the books. Show us the books. Profit to Arkansas? Show us.

b. Where is the oversight of the zoo and its finances? Who oversees it? Politicians? The same politicians whose shoddy oversight of DHS let slide child homicides in past decades?

6) Where are the funds going to come from to "expand" the zoo across the interstate and initiate elephant breeding programs, etc. - in light of Arkansas' problems funding decent high school educations for our children that don't require "remedial" courses the minute they enter college and losing our top-quality students to other states where they can make better livings? What's the priority? Zoo animals or our children? Arkansas can't - never HAS been able to, never will -- afford both.

How about some specific answers? How about some numbers instead of sentiment?

How about some realism for the "Soul of the City" instead of the usual silly ad hominem attacks?

How 'bout getting REAL, for a change?

Show me the money.

Posted by: NormaBates | February 10, 2009 01:39 AM

Norman, have you even been to Memphis' zoo in the past five years? While still not in St. Louis' or San Diego's caliber, an infusion of millions has made Memphis now more of a tourist and scientific destination. Pandas and a China exhibit, for one.

Posted by: jimmyboy | February 10, 2009 04:34 AM

Norma, your questions are good ones. The Zoo does receive money from the City each year to help it cover operations. These operations are well run by a great staff and Director. The oversight is not done by politicians. It is done by the Zoo Board of Governors. They are a group of citizens, that yes, have been appointed by politicians. However, they don't seem to be a very political group.

A broader view of "tourist" may help you understand the Zoo's draw. Most of the Zoo's visitors travel from outside the City, but from inside the state. These visitors spend money when they are in LR, so the ecomomic benefit of the Zoo can not be judged by their income statement alone. Furthermore, the State gives no money to the Zoo despite the benefit the entire state receives.

The Zoo expansion funds you ask about have come from both public and private sources. Just a few years ago the Zoo created the Arkansas Zoological Foundation. In it first three years it raised close to $2 million. This is outstanding considering the fact that donors must agree to give money to something that is owned by the government when most feel that they give enough to the government.

Finally, one statistic that is very interesting. The Memphis Zoo has undergone millions in improvements and expansion. Their zoo has gone to the next level in its misson of tourism, conservation, education, and entertainment. The subsidy the Memphis Zoo receives today is the SAME as it was before the improvements. So, for the same tax dollars, Memphis has a much improved asset for its citizens.

Norma, I can make the same positive arguments for UAMS or youth baseball. I just wanted to answer some of your questions. The financial arguments are tough. Let's take your same approach to all parks. Our parks "revenues barely (if that) pay for the staff salaries.....and upkeep." Sometimes its about quality of life, not dollars and cents.

Posted by: dowhat | February 10, 2009 08:54 AM

I've watched this discussion silently on the blog as a strong supporter of the Little Rock Zoo and haven't posted anything until now. But NormaBates is clearly uneducated about the Little Rock Zoo and its impact on our state. I'll be brief and maybe this will shed some light:

The zoo is one of the largest tourist attractions in central Arkansas with 300,000 visitors every year.

75% of those visitors are from outside Little Rock, meaning that the zoo attracts people from all around the state into the city.

Zoos are not money making institutions, but neither is UAMS. However, both have an economic impact. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the zoo's impact is anywhere close to the economic impact of UAMS, but as a toursit attraction, it's still significant. And...

Max is right. You can't judge the value of park land strickly on economic impact. Other values like quality of life, education, public access, and recreation have to be considered, too.

The zoo is accredited and abides by strict guidelines for keeping and breeding animals. They do right by the animals. Root around on the zoo website for more info. Here's something that explains more:

http://www.vimeo.com/2357145

The city can afford to expand the zoo if the community sees value in it. Zoos across the country have been transformed by an influx of dollars from both public and private sources. It's happened in smaller communities with fewer resources than ours and it can happen here.

The zoo is overseen by a board of governors, the mayor, and the city board of directors. There are public checks and balances in place to make sure zoo leadership is doing the right thing.

And speaking of education, the zoo is a place for education in a fun environment. I'd like to see our zoo enhance this experience through partnerships with schools around the state. The education programs at the zoo are great but could be expanded to reach even more indiviudals.

I agree that the zoo isn't going to be a "world-class" place like San Diego, but it has yet to reach its full potential and needs our help, not cynicism, to make it better.

Posted by: Maggie_70 | February 10, 2009 09:23 AM

Went to the poor zoo this weekend with my son - hadn't been since the 80's. After the front entrance -- it really left something to be desired. I spent the remainder of my visit trying to figure out why we let this place show so poorly. We'd be better off helping the place becoming more appealing to the eye, and more fully funding what we have. It's full of dedicated employees, yes. But, they seem to be stricken with unused buildings and no mandate for landscaping. If it truly sees 300k guests a year from out of towners, we show poorly. Make a decision, Give UAMS the ball field and the zoo some more $.

Posted by: steppedinit | February 10, 2009 03:59 PM

I do understand the positive comments about the zoo.

I also notice not ONE of them mentions anything about the conditions of the animals housed there.

As for the statement that UAMS is not a money-making institution -- THAT will jolt the entire campus and the wonderful physicians who work there -- like Dr. Barlogie's GENUINELY world-class multiple-myeloma clinic.

Who KNEW he -- and they -- and the WHOLE CAMPUS -- were working for nothing and LOSING MONEY!

How selfless of them.

Also, pardon my Sorbonne education, what a spinning bullshit statement.

And thanks, as usual, for the non sequitur ad hominem attack that, "NormaBates is clearly uneducated about the Little Rock Zoo and its impact on our state." Really? HOW clearly uneducated?

I'd love to know -- specifically! Seriously!

Followed by utterly unsubstantiated opinions presented as facts. Until you THINK about them.

Like the one about UAMS not making money. Good grief.

And, of course, the ever-present illiteracy: "strickly" instead of "strictly."

No, honeys: that's not a typo. Just Arkansas. Where we're supposed to "be nice" and sit back and pretend this semi-literate crap is "okay."

I don't know Maggie_70 and I'm sure she's a wonderful human being.

But there is NOT ONE SINGLE STATEMENT she makes that isn't PR and unverifiable. It's all spin.

Or the assertion from Jimmyboy that I haven't been to the Memphis zoo in the last five years. I was there last Christmas where friends were volunteering for their "Christmas Lights" festival, or whatever it's called.

The LR zoo is "educational?" How? I've said it again and again. There is NOTHING educational about staring at caged animals for 2 minutes and reading a tiny "informative" card. NOTHING!

Of COURSE it's "fun" for kids. What do they know? So's a snow-cone. They don't know they're looking at animals in prison.

Genuine animal education takes place in schools and online.

Maggie says it's a "fun environment?" Really? Guess all my out-of-town friends who return from the zoo missed the "fun." "How depressing," is their unanimous verdict. Guess they're wrong and Maggie's right.

The letter to the Editor in Tuesday's D-G, I believe, about the zoo's horrible condition, staff service, etc., hit the nail on the head.

Dowhat at least attempts a rational response to the questions I posed.

But NEITHER Dowhat nor Maggie remotely suggest that the Arkansas public be allowed to look at the books.

We want to see, in columns, like an accountant, EXACTLY what our zoo brings in in gross receipts, EXACTLY where the money comes from, EXACTLY what the staff salaries are and EXACTLY what the animals' upkeep and the facilities' maintenance costs are PER YEAR.

TOTAL TRANSPARENCY, in other words. Not spin.

So we can make a rational decision about our zoo policies. NOT decisions based on PR people trying desperately to hang onto their jobs or some sentimental yearning for Arkansas to "someday" have a "world-class" zoo.

A rational decision based NOT at the expense of humane treatment of the animals on exhibit in this still-shoddy, BARELY accredited (for political reasons - remember?) fourth-rate zoo.

The rest of it, those PR statements above, are blarney.

I'm not exhibiting "cynicism" as Maggie_70 would have it in yet another lame ad hominem slur.

I'm asking REAL questions and seeking REAL answers.

I haven't gotten any.

All I'm asking, for the people of Arkansas and the animals we purport to house humanely, is . . .

TRANSPARENCY.

Instead, I'm told UAMS "doesn't make money" either. Or diverted into kids' sports programs, or something else off topic.

I don't know what UAMS has to do with our zoo (well, yes I do: absolutely nothing).

But the statement itself is an insult to anybody who can think, to Arkansans in general, and to the animals in this pitiful facility.

Show me the money. It's all about the money. It's certainly not about the animals' welfare or "education" or these phony feel-good PR smokescreens. So SHOW US THE MONEY!

BE FULLY TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE MONEY!

WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE?

FACTS would be nice, here.

NOT spin, and this silly trying to poke holes in legitimate questions.

I may be dumb as a brick. "Uneducated" about the zoo, as Maggie "strickly" infers.

But I'm smart enough to know THIS: I've YET to get a straight, honest answer on this topic.

WHAT'S TO HIDE, zoo supporters?

STRAIGHT ANSWERS? REAL NUMBERS?

IS THAT SO HARD?

Posted by: NormaBates | February 11, 2009 03:43 AM

Arkansas Blog

And here comes the pitch ....

Comments

Post a comment