March 7, 2009
The Commercial Dispatch has a very good Web site showing the location, asking price and photos of the proposed sites for the new sports complex. There is a need for the "Sportsplex" but at what price. The sites have an asking prices ranging form $3,400 to $28,000 per acre. The photos show the sites are swamp land or at best in a flood plain.
The Burns Bottom tract is located near the downtown area; it would be a good idea to place the complex in this area and I''m sure the landowners would be willing to dump this property on the Recreation Board for the right price. However, this land would need to be raised at least 10 feet to get it above flood stage. Has anyone considered the cost of the dirt to accomplish this task? If this property is filled in, what effect would it have on the property along the Riverwalk?
I picked the Burns Bottom because it is one of the cheaper properties but all of them have low elevation problems. The asking price of most of the property is ridiculous. The property owners are saying that their parcel of land is worth the asking price; therefore this is the fair market value and it should be taxed based on the fair market value but I would bet it is taxed at a fraction of the asking price. I see no reason why the taxpayers of Lowndes County should give a bailout to these property owners.
If we are to buy swamp land, let''s buy the property from the Corps of Engineers, it is the cheapest, it''s 156 acres and it floods just as good as the other properties.
jack taylor commented at 3/8/2009 4:47:00 AM:
Propst park flooded for years & sometimes back-to-back years we had to start seasons after the flood water went down off the fields & the muck & mess was cleaned off. I really can't even believe we would consider a sportsplex anywhere close to a creek or river..We spent alot of money on the Riverwalk & it already floods.Please pick a site that we won't be saying: I told you so.
Butch & Kathy Hill commented at 3/9/2009 3:34:00 PM:
Columbus has a wonderful history - now let us focus on the future. A sportsplex that is close to downtown that promotes our fair city would be in the best interests of our Possom Town. If we build a sportsplex/Recreational facility and utilize both the Corp land by the Riverwalk and the Burns Bottom properties we could build a Sportsplex that would be enhanced by the Riverwalk and downtown merchants. It would be surrounded with picnic and sitting areas along with enough acreage for baseball, soccer, football, basketball and all the in betweens that make a Sportsplex. We would have a place where families and friends could enjoy a variety of sports and enjoy nature. People all over Mississippi will visit our fair city and we will have serious bragging rights.
Last weekend we had a Soccer Competition at Oxford's new Sportsplex. It was a really nice setup with plenty of room for all sports. It was built for the future and was close to food, lodging, and shopping.
If we build a Sportxplex that has alot of acreage as well as close proximity to our merchants we will find ourselves with serious generated revenue for soccer and other sport competitions. Yes, we could go a cheaper route - but we're not about cheaper, are we??? We don't want to portray one of our finest efforts in a manner that in a few years we will have outgrown? Let's do it right the first time because if we do Columbus will have a Sportsplex recreational facility that we will be proud of for generations to come.
Debbie Gaddis commented at 3/24/2009 12:42:00 AM:
I believe it is against the law to develop wetlands. Federal law. Does the federal law not apply when a city is involved?
Wetlands protect the environment and are a vital part of the ecosystem. Mitigation in another area does not do a very good job of filling the original wetland's role in the local ecosystem.
1. Lynn Spruill: Zach's circle of life LOCAL COLUMNS
2. Editorial cartoon for 4-24-15 NATIONAL COLUMNS
3. Our View: A unified front on the fight against homelessness DISPATCH EDITORIALS
4. Ask Rufus: Art, lost gold mines and Walt Disney LOCAL COLUMNS
5. Kathleen Parker: Mr. Hughes goes to Washington NATIONAL COLUMNS