Published: Thursday, April 11, 2002

When lubbock voters considered five bond propositions totaling $37.8 million in city improvements in a Sept. 18, 1999, bond election, a $1.7 million amphitheater was hardly the biggest issue involved. The biggest dollar item in the proposal was $17,165,000 in street improvements.

The amphitheater in Mackenzie Park was just one $1.7 million item in a $14.7 million park improvements package, along with the development of seven new parks and improvements to existing parks.

It appeared to us then — and it still does — that $1.7 million would buy the city a pretty nice amphitheater. However, the plans have been redesigned substantially. A roof has been added, along with dressing rooms, restrooms for performers, scaffolding for lights and other things. Construction is now expected to cost $2.6 million.

'Sold' to voters as $1.7 million

If $1.7 would buy a nice amphitheater, then we have no doubt that $2.6 million would buy Lubbock an even nicer one. But there is a very big problem with that: The money that voters approved for the project was $1.7 million — not $2.6 million.

If the argument is raised that, technically, the voters approved $14.7 million in park improvements and that they did not specifically and separately vote on the amphitheater, we would strongly reject it.

When voters gave the nod to the park improvements, they were told that the improvements included a $1.7 million amphitheater. That was how the package of improvements was "sold" to them, and that is what they had every reason to believe.

Adding more bells and whistles along the way and jacking the price up by $900,000 is simply not fair to the voters of Lubbock who cast their ballots in good faith based on the information that had been presented to them.

If the money is taken from elsewhere in the parks package and applied to a more expensive amphitheater, then other park improvements that voters believed they were approving will suffer. If the city finds the additional money elsewhere in its budget and applies it to the amphitheater, then there is too much fat in its budget.

Going back to voters is an option

A private sponsor has proposed donating $500,000 of the money in return for naming rights. That is good, but it is not good enough to sell us on a more expensive amphitheater. What would be necessary in that regard for our approval is private funds donated to cover all of the additional costs plus the added costs of maintenance each year — and we mean the costs of maintaining a roof, dressing rooms, restrooms and so forth.

Another option would be to take the matter back to Lubbock voters and allow them to decide whether they want a more expensive amphitheater.

Failing those options, the only viable alternative is to build the amphitheater as originally presented to voters.

Lubbock voters approved a $1.7 million amphitheater in good faith, and that is what they should receive. Otherwise, cancel the plans, apply the money to the debt for the bonds and revisit the issue later.

Related Searches