I'm getting the feeling I'm the only one who couldn't sleep that read the whole 54 page report...
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 07:50 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 06, 2005 #
I read both reports on Toledo's website a few days ago, and was wondering some of the same things. While I think that riverfront property can be used for something better than an arena, I agree that they jumped to some conclusions without all the relevant information. Perhaps this study was just a set up for a series of future $70,000 studies to be done by Pizzuti...
posted by wallyg at 08:31 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 06, 2005 #
The study on the city's website is what was presented by CSL/Pizzuti at the two arena meetings last month.
In my opinion, the study contains no bias. The study was done to determine whether or not Toledo could even support an arena. Most new arenas lose money, according to a developer I talked to. This study showed that an arena will work in Toledo no matter which side of the river its on. Oh, according to that developer I talked to, the only way an arena will make money is if the development is 100% privately funded.
The study shows that an arena on the west side of the river could possibly make a little more money than on the east side. The difference is not in the millions of dollars. This study shows that the differene is only in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that difference may dwindle or shift to the east side depending upon a more detailed second study that would look at specific sites. Land acquisition on the west side is going to be expensive, but no one knows how expensive because no sites have been selected.
At the New Urbanism meeting last week, Bill Carroll said the reason for going slow with the arena and the reason for the study or studies is because you don't want to make a $100 million mistake. Like Bill said, you can't simply pick up the arena and move it somewhere else because you don't like its initial location. A new arena will probably cost more than $50 million. One or two $70,000 studies don't seem like much when the goal is to prevent an economic development disaster.
The study said that if the arena was near the SeaGate Centre, an additional 10 large events would be likely. CSL has a lot of experience with arena studies in many locations around the country and across different size markets. CSL narrowed their comparison of Toledo to 10 other markets. And I believe that's how they came up with their numbers.
One thing CSL said is that it's better for Toledo if the arena is somewhere downtown, doesn't matter what side of the river, but near the business core of the city and not out on the edge of the city. That came from studying economic development around arenas in other markets.
Some events have moved from the hellhole sports aroma to SeaGate for obvious reasons. But I bet there are other events that bypass Toledo altogether due to a lack of 21st century facilities like a modest-sized modern arena.
As to point 3:
"3. Why and how do they assume that club seats would have to be $5.00 cheaper if on the other side of the river as well as naming rights being listed as lower on the east side if they have not done a complete detailed market analysis of our area?"
I think CSL's findings are obvious. Most of the core business district is on the west side of the river. If you work at Owens Corning, HCR, Fifth Third, etc. would you prefer to walk to an after-work arena event in the warehouse district or walk or drive to the east side? Factor in the winter cold and darkness too. Some people believe that businesses on the west side of the river will pressure government to select the west side.
CSL said they're not traffic analysts. At the meetings, people pointed out that the new I-280 bridge would make it easier for some to get to the east side. I don't see traffic as an issue here no matter what side of the river the arena is on. This is Toledo not Atlanta, not Boston, not Chicago, and not even Columbus. It's not difficult to get into the east side or the west side of downtown. We're not that big of a city. Traffic should be removed from the equation, especially since it's not something CSL does.
In my opinion, no way in hell will Toledo build a $60 million parking garage on the east side. That pricetag could be more than the cost of the arena. To me, the only possible location for an arena on the east side is out by the new I-280 bridge. The Marina District is going to need a lot of surface parking anyway, so maybe developers can blend in additional surface parking out by I-280.
I'd like to know what sites on the west side some people have in mind for an arena. Two blocks of space are needed for an arena and support parking. At the second arena meeting, someone suggested building the arena near the train station. Another developer told me he liked that location suggestion because of the crappy buildings in that area that may need to come down within 10 years anyway. But is that location too far away from the rest of downtown or would an arena by the train station help revitalize that area?
The new arena idea in Toledo is at least 12 years old, according to a Toledo City Paper story from last summer.
"[Lou Anne] Mills was one of the first to raise the arena issue publicly when she and SSOE architect Charlie Stark produced a 57-page report in 1993 promoting the benefits and feasibilities of a new 15,000-seat arena adjacent to the SeaGate Convention Centre."
Nineteen-frigging-ninety-three! I don't want to hear Carty complain about Ford not making progress on an arena. Carty had a 1993 study and eight years to build an arena, and he didn't get it done. But in my opinion, the arena should not be a campaign issue for anyone. I wish the mayoral candidates would leave the arena out of the conversation, but you know that won't happen.
posted by jr at 09:50 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 06, 2005 #
I disagree with you on the bias, the report seemed to point to highlighting a downtown location, and reasons against the east side location but thanks for answering me.
The reason I questioned why this study was done if it wasn't going to be detailed on our actual market was it's going to take longer the more studies that need to be done. It's been long enough. As you pointed out since 1993.
Since I don't live in either downtown or the east side if I am going to an event it doesn't matter to me if I am downtown or the eastside which is why I questioned the dollar difference being less on the east side. I'm going to drive in, I'm going to park my car, see the event and then drive home. I might stop somewhere to eat or grab a drink but really it is just as easy to drive over to the Docks as far as parking wise if I want food if I were on the East Side (fan of Gumbos) We did use Tarta for the last Mudhen's Game we attended and that worked rather well but that could be easily replicated to provide service for games for some new team no matter if the location was downtown or the east side. Especially since it is a park and ride type operation. Since there was no traffic study or transportation report done either those are other questions we don't know as far as increased cost of either to the overall picture.
The report states there would be ten less events per year on the East Side VS downtown, yet the majority of the events listed as possible ones for the new arena are already being held at the Seagate Convention Center. I checked the Seagate schedule for the past year to make this determination.
Unless the assumption that Toledo is going to get an indoor football league or something of that caliber does happen (or perhaps this new Toledo Ice basketball team) it seemed to me a venue shuffle rather than new events. I understand the whole combining the two for large events if they are downtown but realistically it doesn't appear the larger Seagate is being used for many events that utilize all of it's current space. I also understand the easy access to hotels if it is going to be marketed as an out of town type convention center. Again worth noting alot of the Seagate uses seem to revolve around local not out of town usage. Realistically if the new arena took some of the local usage and that freed up the Seagate for out of town conventions that would still be a win win for the area and that could happen if the arena was on the east side or downtown.
I'm not against the arena at all, nor do I have an eastside or downtown preference except for the fact that many do believe the east side was promised the arena and there are issues surrounding the vote concerning that. I just had some questions and I felt they were worth asking. How many more studies to we need? We know now at least one more detailed study on Toledo marketing alone and one traffic study then I'm assuming site surveys...which means years and years more before there is an arena...It just seemed to me the smart thing would have been to do the survey including detailed information from Toledo rather than using information that anyone could have gotten from a few phone calls and the internet to compare other arenas to Toledo.
While it was a very pretty report, most of it was either assumptions based on other arenas and not our individual city. To be honest I was rather disappointed since it contained very little specific detail information and clearly stated other studies would need to be done to "re-evaluate" what they had presented. Granted as a lowly personal research addict 70,000 might be cheap as far as studies go but having one that really only states assumptions and necessitates further studies after 12 years? Makes me wonder how serious the committment is to build this arena at all.
posted by psyche777 at 11:16 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 06, 2005 #
Also didn't mean to ignore your comment on making the arena a political issue. I agree. Especially since it's obvious we are years away due to the time probably necessary for the "detailed" survey's to be done.
In my opinion neither Carty or Jack should attempt to make the arena a political issue unless it's going to be who did more studies.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 11:24 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 06, 2005 #
In another topic, I made the easy prediction that a new arena would not be built during the next term of the Mayor of Toledo. Even if the phase two study is not commissioned by Toledo, the decision on an arena location will be delayed until after the mayoral election, which means the location decision probably won't be made until first quarter 2006 at the earliest.
If the west side is selected, the next major obstacle will be selecting a site, which will probably take several months. Then financing. Land has to be purchased. Buildings will probably have to come down. At the earliest, arena construction would begin in 2007. Building the arena will take what, 1-2 years? If everything goes well, which means perfect, maybe a new arena would open before the 2009 mayoral election.
Charlotte's new 18,000-seat arena will open this fall, and construction began on it in July 2003. Since Toledo's arena is planned to be much smaller, I assume it will take less time to build.
"Located just steps away from a variety of office buildings, restaurants, stores and two city transit terminals, the new arena is being built by the City of Charlotte and will be the home of the NBA’s Charlotte Bobcats and the WNBA's Charlotte Sting. In addition to professional basketball, the new Charlotte arena will play host to a variety of events, ranging from college basketball games and tournaments, to popular concerts and family shows."
"The new Charlotte Light Rail system will transport visitors to and from the arena when completed."
"The state-of-the-art [arena] facility is located in the heart of Charlotte, N.C., convenient to both Uptown residents and travelers from three interstates, and within walking distance of more than 4,000 hotel rooms and nearly 150 restaurants."
Hotel rooms, that's another reason to have Toledo's new arena built as close as possible to downtown on the west side of the river.
posted by jr at 12:13 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 07, 2005 #
It would appear that Charlotte doesn't have a convention center near by or if they do it wasn't mentioned in that. If we didn't have Seagate I think the decision to build downtown would really be the only logical answer.
I'm not sure how much of an impact the short distance from the east side location to downtown hotels would have. It would depend on how much walking traffic they expect versus how many events at the new arena would necessitate hotel accomodatons especially since the Seagate would still be a viable option for out of town conventions.
Frank said he believes the Phase two proposal will go to Council via the Mayor in a few weeks.
I haven't been involved in this as you have jr and you definitely have more background on this which is why I appreciate your information and input (and one of the reasons I cross posted because I hoped you'd have some answers). That said I think after 12 years it would be nice if we were beyond Phase 1.
If you feel up to it I'd like your views on the legal aspect of the past vote on the arena since I also think that is part of the issue. Do you think that makes a committment to the east side?
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 01:43 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 07, 2005 #
From the Toledo Free Press part of an interview with George Sarantou:
http://www.toledofreepress.com/?id=107
George Sarantou: In September 2001, voters passed the Marina District authorization allowing the City to spend money on the utility and infrastructure work on an arena to be built in East Toledo [City Charter Section 79].
ES: Were a developer to build an arena downtown, wouldn’t this bypass the voters?
GS: It would circumvent what the voters decided. They would need the financial means and wouldn’t get a penny from the city. They might do it with county money because Section 79 doesn’t apply.
That is major concern. This would mean to build the arena downtown if how George is stating it here either no city money could be used or it would have to go back before the voters to again change that section of the City Charter. If this is true than that makes this a much more difficult situation to build an arena downtown.
posted by psyche777 at 01:54 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 07, 2005 #
Section 79. Compulsory referendum of certain measures - franchises.
No ordinance or resolution for a public improvement requiring or authorizing the expenditure of more than fifteen percent (15%) of the average gross annual current operating expenditures by the City for the five (5) fiscal years immediately preceding, or for the granting of a general public utility franchise, shall be effective until the same shall be approved by a majority vote of the electors voting thereon; provided, however, no convention center, exhibit hall, sports arena, or municipal theater, other than a sports arena located in the City's Marina District, being the area bounded by the Maumee River, Interstate Highway 280, Front Street and Main Street, shall be constructed, acquired, or leased unless the ordinance or resolution authorizing construction bidding, acquisition, or leasing shall have been approved by a majority vote of the electors voting thereon, whether or not such ordinance or resolution requires or authorizes the expenditure of more or less than fifteen percent (15%) of the average gross annual current operating expenditures by the City for the five (5) fiscal years immediately preceding. A general public utility is one in which all the people of the City may have an interest.
(Amended by electors 9-11-01)
so at the end of five fiscal years it would appear that this ends and then it goes back to no spending unless approved by the voters no matter the location. Unless there is a way to extend it, which would probably have to be done via voters as well. Maybe that's part of the reason for the stall so that this part of the legislation becomes a non-issue.
posted by psyche777 at 02:02 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 07, 2005 #
psyche77, you answered your question about City Charter Section 79 and provided good info for everyone. We were told at the first arena meeting that if the city chooses to build the arena anywhere else in Toledo besides on the east side, the only way city money can be used in the project is if it's approved again by the voters. But who said city money will be used? If it's privately funded, then no vote is needed.
Right now I don't think the couny is involved at all in the arena in any way. That may change when it comes to financing. If possible, the arena needs to be 100% privately funded. If it's true that west-side downtown businesses are pressuring the city to build the arena on the west side, then these businesses should pay for it.
If the west side is selected, and city money is to be used, think of the boondoggle that could be created if voters say NO to paying for a west side arena. Even if you wanted the arena on the west side, it would be a chance to screw with city government by saying, "No, you can't use the money." Make the government seek private funding. Make some of these businesses that have received tax breaks pay for the arena.
posted by jr at 11:09 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 07, 2005 #
Thanks jr., I start asking questions and then I start searching. I'm overly curious at times so thanks for being so helpful.
I would much rather see the arena totally funded by a private group as opposed to the city or the county for that matter.
It doesn't matter how many phases we go thru of studies if no one has the funds or the interest to build it whether it ends up downtown or the east side.
Really to be honest it should be the developers choice where he wants to pay for an arena to be of course given the proper permits, etc etc especially if no city money is going to be involved.
posted by psyche777 at 11:20 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 07, 2005 #
One thing I forgot to mention that will need to be done for a new arena is the design. What will it look like? How long will it take Toledo to decide on an arena design? The back and forth changes, too much input, citizen reaction, it might take a year to agree on a design.
The arena's location will be a factor in the design. If it's by the new I-280 bridge, the new arena might need to have a wild, funky modern design, something relating to the bridge. If the arena is in the warehouse district, the arena will probably assume an old-style look that matches the surrounding brick buildings. And since Toledo is still called the Glass City, the artistic use of a lot of glass could be in the design. And naturally, costs will be a factor.
Settling on a design will add to the overall time it takes to build an arena. A new arena opening in 2010 is optimistic. The Marina District project will move faster than the arena. The noticable construction in the Marina District probably won't begin until 2007.
The early Marina District development can work around the current arena, but at some point, the current arena will have to come down. I'd say the current arena will be around for another four or five years. The Marina District project can't wait until a new arena is built before tearing down the current one, unless the I-280 bridge location is chosen. It's possible that Toledo could be without an arena for a while.
After attending four meetings last month relating to downtown development, I've decided that Toledo's need for a new arena is overrated. Too many other projects and ideas exist that would be more beneficial than an arena. A new arena is a plus, a bonus, but it's not a requirement for Toledo, in my opinion. Talking about a new arena is an easy way to get people riled up. It's a convenient crutch. The public needs to be made more aware of the other projects and ideas that are proposed for downtown Toledo, which includes both sides of the river.
In the past, I've made the mistake of saying "downtown" when I meant the west side of the river. From here on, the word "downtown" should mean both sides of the river. Using "downtown" to mean the west side is incorrect usage.
posted by jr at 12:18 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 07, 2005 #
That's going to be hard for me to do jr, to me downtown is...downtown...lol
I'll try to be more correct
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 04:06 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 07, 2005 #
It's interesting you stated you think the whole arena thing is not a priority, granted I haven't attended any of the meetings, but I was thinking along similar lines as I read the pdf. As I read the assumptions of the events the arena could host, versus what I already know is already done at Seagate and subtracting the numbers if Toledo didn't pick up an extra sports franchise that would use it I wondered how much of an impact it really would have too. If I were a storm fan I might feel it more important but my hockey fan days were back when it was the Diggers.....
Thanks again for the discussion, I'm glad I found you and this place.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 06:58 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 07, 2005 #
My opinion that the arena should not be a high priority is based upon listening to local developers and planners discuss their ideas. So even if I think a new arena is a low priority development project, a new arena still ranks much higher on the priority list than the mistake Toledo made a few years ago: Building the Mud Hens stadium.
I wish I would have asked CSL and Pizzuti if they thought the new Mud Hens stadium was a mistake. I say yes. A new arena should have been built before a new Mud Hens stadium. And the new arena should have gone where the new Hens stadium is at. A skywalk over Monroe St could have connected SeaGate and the new arena. What the hell was Toledo thinking?
CSL said a new arena would be used around 120 days per year. How many days per year is the new baseball stadium used? Obviously, however many home games the Hens play, which is less than 80. Weak.
And the Hens stadium is only used for one thing: baseball. Big deal. This is the fourth year for the new stadium, and I've been to four games. A new arena would host many different kinds of events, and I'm pretty sure I would have been to the arena more than once a year for some kind of an event.
So the first major mistake Toledo made was building the new Hens stadium where they did. Do we thank Carty for this blunder? Remember, Toledoans at least twice voted against paying for the new Hens stadium despite the threats that the Hens would be moved out of Toledo if the Hens didn't get a new new ballpark. So it's not like Toledoans were all gun-ho for a new baseball stadium.
Does the stadium look good? Of course it does. But it would look better in a different location.
This is why Toledo is taking its time with selecting a location for an arena. Can't make a mistake. I haven't heard anybody say the location of the new Hens stadium is mistake, but how can it not be?
Has the new Hens stadium been good for downtown? Yes. But a new arena would have been twice as good, since it's used year round, and it's used for more than one type of activity.
posted by jr at 07:26 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 07, 2005 #
It wasn't Toledo. It was Lucas County. Good ole Sandy Isenberg was still a commissioner and she worked very hard - along with others of course - to get it done.
After the voters said no our real estate taxes went up substantially. Amazingly it was enough to get the stadium built. Geez, I sound like a conspiracy nut. Oh wait a minute. This was a normal political move.
posted by thinkingwoman at 07:47 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 07, 2005 #
Not to make it worse but they dont have 80 home games. So it's probably around 50 home games. I don't know if they rent it for other game uses or not. Okay checked their website:
Fifth Third Field is an ideal location to host your next special event. We have numerous unique party areas that can accommodate up to 500 people. These facilities are available all year round.
I do go to the games, I went to the games when they were in Maumee too though. I didn't want the new stadium to be built on the west side of downtown (trying - lol) mainly because as a burbie I used to avoid it unless I had to go there.
That and the memories of the old stadium...The new stadium is nice but I do see your point that building the arena there would have served a bigger venue.
posted by psyche777 at 10:11 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 07, 2005 #
"It wasn't Toledo. It was Lucas County."
That's right. 'Ol Ray Kest had a hand in coming up with the financing plan for the baseball stadium, correct? Was the vote on whether or not taxpayers should pay for the stadium done by just Toledoans or was that a county-wide vote? Did the city initially attempt to build the stadium by itself but got the county involved later? Who decided on the location, and why did they choose to build it where they did? I would have thought someone would have brought up the possibility that someday the city might want to build a new arena near SeaGate.
posted by jr at 01:05 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 08, 2005 #
HISTORY LESSON:
As for 5/3 Field...first it went to a vote of the entire county for the funding through a tax. The vote was rejected. Then the Commissioners (Isenberg, Copeland, Barlos - at the time) came up with some kind of creative financing plan - brainchild of Ray Kest. Actually, Kest had said it could be done without a tax before the vote, but no one listened.
Anyway, Tom Chema (highly respected by JRB) was brought in by Jim Ruvalo to see Isenberg and he was hired to be the consultant on the new ballpark. The location was determined (many public meetings) and the financing plan put into place. Public was still really mad that the commissioners first action was to increase taxes - rejected soundly - before looking at other ways to finance the work.
Actually, the Mud Hens have made enough money each year to pay their portion of the debt service AND they've given the County even more money to reduce the principle. This has saved the county the need to pay the interest on the debt out of their general fund, which has really been a help over the past several years of lower revenue.
Just don't start talk of the financing of the Convention Center...again, a tax levy issue that was rejected and facility built anyway...seems we have a history of going against the voters in this county.
p.s. Tom Chema was paid generously for his work and, rumor has it, Ruvalo got a "finders fee" for bringing him in...roughly 20% each month...
posted by intrepid at 07:30 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 08, 2005 #
From Miachel Miller's latest opinion piece in the Toledo Free Press:
"[Carty] envisioned restaurants on the riverfront, a baseball stadium smack in the middle of Downtown. Carty led the way."
Why didn't Carty first envision an arena smack in the middle of the west side of downtown? Does the City/County regret putting the baseball field by SeaGate? The sky is sunny on planet Hindsight, but I wonder. If Toledo had to do it over again, would they choose a different location on the west side for the Hens stadium? That would have made the location for the new arena a slam dunk decision, and the arena might be under construction or open by now. Seems to me that the stupid decision years ago about the ballpark's location has mucked up the new arena initiative and clogged other development projects.
So maybe with a stretch of the imagination, we can blame the no-arena on the previous administration's lack of a long-term vision for Toledo.
posted by jr at 11:43 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 08, 2005 #
It's obvious they had a different vision which doesn't make it wrong.
To be honest the Mud Hens are alot more known to this area than the Storm which probably had alot more to do with making the decision to support the creation of Fifth Third Field rather than an arena at that time.
Why not a different location? I can't answer that one. It's obvious no matter Carty's vision the County played a larger role in where the final location ended up being.
I'm biased because I am more of a Mud Hen's fan, but it would appear from a threat of losing which team would hurt the Toledo area more? I'd say they probably believed it was the Hens...
posted by psyche777 at 01:52 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 08, 2005 #
> It wasn't Toledo. It was Lucas County. Good ole Sandy Isenberg was still a commissioner and she worked very hard - along with others of course - to get it done.
> After the voters said no our real estate taxes went up substantially. Amazingly it was enough to get the stadium built. Geez, I sound like a conspiracy nut.
And "The Blade" didn't run an expose on that!? Amazing. Or did they?
Regardless, is that s.o.p. for Toledo and Lucas county? When I was a little kid, I vaguely recall some sort of vote about the "convention center" and/or "hotel" downtown. Seems like the voters turned it down. Kessler, the mayor, I think he was a Democrat, too, if you can believe it, made a comment on tv like this: "I don't care if the voters turn it down or not. It'll get built." IIRC my parents were quite exercised over that. But it did get built and helped bring on the current Toledo renaissance! ;-)
Also, I seem to recall on more than one occasion where the city has diverted funds from, say, one specific purpose the voters voted on to another. For example, a levy is passed for garbage collection. Funds are then diverted to another purpose. The city says you will now have to pay for garbage collection. I was always amazed they could get away with that. But, it was Toledo then, and it's still, apparently, Toledo!
Anyway, even as a kid, that comment by Kessler struck me as pretty arrogant and outrageous for a politico.
I suspect what this all means is that because voters in Toledo and Lucas will vote Democrat come hell or high water, the politicos don't have to worry about following the will of the people or even giving them lip service.
I guess that serves the electorate right, doesn't it? In the meantime, it might also explain why some people are exiting Toledo (and Lucas county) for greener pastures so to speak.
Has "The Blade" ever done a report on the various efforts to "revive" Toledo over the years detailing how the monies were raised, spent, who were the proponents of the initiatives, and the ultimate outcomes? It'd also be interesting to know what "The Blade" positions were on these initiatives, too.
swd
posted by swd at 04:58 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 08, 2005 #
swd - I remember my parents being outraged over Kessler's comments on the Convention Center...again, built by the County and still subsidized by the County. However, the City of Toledo, even though they still appoint members, hasn't provided any financial support in years.
(Around $250,000/year out of the county general fund under Sandy, but down to $150,000/year - capital expenses only - under Thurber with a commitment that the convention center will have a plan to live within their budget and not request money out of the general fund. This is in addition to all the hotel/motel taxes they get for operations and capital improvements. BTW - did you know that when the debt is paid off on the Convention Center in about 10-15 years that it will be owned by the County - read you and me????)
I know a lot of people are still upset over the way the Convention Center was handled - same as 5/3 Field and now, it appears, over an arena.
Again, definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. Still we elect the same old same old (names changes, but philosophy remains the same) and wonder why our city isn't doing better.
what a shame!
posted by intrepid at 07:36 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 09, 2005 #
For the record, I went and talked to my folks about Kessler and his (in)famous remarks.
They said he said this: "The voters have a short memory. It'll get built."
Well, apparently a lot of Democrat voters have short memories, but not everyone it seems!
swd
posted by swd at 04:24 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 12, 2005 #
> Has "The Blade" ever done a report on the various efforts to "revive" Toledo ....
Actually, it would be fascinating to see a documentary, done by channel 11 or 13, about this, too!
I think that might be an Emmy winner!
Do you think they have old footage? ;-)
swd
posted by swd at 04:29 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 12, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
