I Want Answers
To The Editors:
Regarding Susan Shackelford’s pro-arena “Eyes On The Prize,” (CL, February 20), I asked this question of the City Council, and I am still waiting for the answer. Perhaps Susan Shackelford could answer it.
When fans began to complain about rising player salaries, we were told rather sharply that all we had to do was stop buying tickets. The pressure of lower demand would suppress the increases and rein in the greed. We did that; the NBA’s attendance and ratings are down about 20 percent from just a few years ago, and the Hornets in particular have dropped in attendance about 60 percent from just five or six years ago. There are various reasons, but the team has been reasonably competitive during that period, so losing has not been one of them. Now that the NBA and the Hornets can no longer support the obscene salaries they have paid out, even with the nominal “salary cap,” by all rights they should be lowering ticket prices and salaries. But that’s not the reality. The reality is that the NBA is trying to use economic blackmail to force the city to use taxpayer dollars to shore up the deficit created by their faulty product.
My question is this: If the taxpayers are forced into this economic prostitution by our so-called leaders, what avenue then remains for us to register our displeasure at what is happening in pro basketball?
But then, perhaps Susan Shackelford can’t answer that question, because she doesn’t know. Like she doesn’t know that the city will in fact borrow far more than the $96.6 million she claims for this deal since the “Big Three,” who have spent the last few years laying off thousands of our fellow citizens, by the way, are not “providing” any money, but merely fronting it in exchange for $50+ million worth of land, and expecting the money back in revenue. Or like the fact that we won’t “save” any interest, because the new arena deal is actually far more expensive than the first proposal (by about $41 million); like the fact that most Charlotteans couldn’t care less about whether uptown is “alive” at night; like the fact that there is nothing that could be attracted to the smaller arena (besides the NBA, apparently) that cannot be brought to the Coliseum now, or the fact that the new arena would
have 2,500 seats fewer than any of the actual or scheduled ACC tournament venues from 1990 through 2010, meaning our chances of getting it back are about nil. Can she?
Roger Simpson, Jr.
Charlotte
Moore’s Laughable Charges
To The Editors:
Typical of the hysterical leftist point of view, Michael Moore (“Enron and the Bush Administration,” February 20) could have given us more insight into Enron’s political influence; instead, he limited his outrage to the Bush administration. Whatever his reasons for singling out Pres. Bush for a smear job, Moore’s assertions are laughable.
Firstly, Enron’s contributions to Bush’s campaigns, both gubernatorial and presidential, were not illegal or unethical. You may want to alert the other 200+ candidates Enron has financed on both sides of the political spectrum, noting a large contribution to the Democratic Party shortly after Clinton helped Enron in India.
Secondly, Moore stated that Lay “decided who would head the regulatory agency that oversaw Enron.” I presume Moore is referring to Pat Wood who was appointed to head the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Before joining the FERC, Wood was Chairman of the Public Utility Commission of Texas. In the early 90s, he was also legal advisor to the FERC Commissioner. There were many who favored his appointment to FERC; Lay was just one. As far as Lay’s “interviewing” candidates, c’mon! I realize Moore’s column is supposed to be tongue in cheek, but get real. Are we to believe Lay was solely approving and disapproving the appointments of the White House?
Thirdly, Moore asserts that the White House is inundated with former Enron employees. Moore writes that Lawrence Lindsey, Bush’s chief economic advisor, Thomas White, Secretary of the Army, and Robert Zoellick, Bush’s Federal Trade Representative, all have prior affiliation with Enron. Since Enron was one of America’s largest corporations, and based in Texas, are we surprised so many people Bush hired were former employees? Does that mean these people weren’t qualified? Does it suggest some major influence from Enron? Apparently, the influence wasn’t all that great, ’cause when “Kenny-boy” got in a bit too deep, there wasn’t much any of them could do for him, was there? I don’t recall any attempt by the White House to bail out Enron or cover any illegal or alleged criminal behavior. In fact, the White House called for an investigation into Enron in December, and it was Pres. Bush himself who initiated an investigation just weeks after Enron declared bankruptcy.
Moore attacks Pres. Bush’s credibility with respect to his lack of knowledge of Enron’s impending collapse. Is it possible, considering the recent terrorist attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan, and multiple Anthrax mailings, that a phone call to the Secretaries of the Treasury or Commerce might not have been our President’s greatest priority?
Does Moore have some inside information that Lay discussed anything illegal during the phone calls to O’Neill or Evans? Doubtful. O’Neill and Evans never alerted the SEC because there was no disclosure. If either O’Neill or Evans had informed President Bush of Ken Lay’s phone call asking for assistance, what would Moore suggest Bush have done about it? Bail Enron out? Order the public to sell all Enron shares? I realize the reality of the capitalist stock market is lost on leftists, but give me a break!
And finally, Mr. Moore asserts Enron did receive influence from the White House. He noted that Bush wanted to further deregulate the energy industry; privatize Social Security, with some investment in the stock market; and privatize our water supply and trade it as a commodity. Earth to Moore! This might shock you, but it isn’t just Enron and Lay who support these ideas. And while it might likewise shock you to find out Bush was acting on his own beliefs as a conservative Republican, many Americans consider privatization and deregulation to be positive concepts!
John Currier
Kings Mountain
Here’s What You Said
To The Editors:
Regarding Alex Dunn’s letter of February 20 (“Here’s What I Said”, Letters to the Editor): Excuse me, Mr. Dunn. Perhaps I could have understood the point you were trying to make a bit better if you’d backed them up with facts and not totally fictitious numbers. Here’s what you said in your February 6 letter:
“People everywhere are sick and tired of paying $30-50 per ticket, $5 to park, $20 for a hotdog and soft drink, and $70 for a replica jersey, just to see grown men play a game that they don’t care about.”
Sir, this was simply not true and that was what my letter was trying to point out. I will repeat, good Hornets tickets are available for $10 to $16 dollars, not $30 to $50. A hotdog and soft drink are not and never have been $20 at a Hornets game. In fact, according to ESPN, the cost of attending a Hornets game for a family of four is the lowest of any team in the NBA. Mr. Dunn, attending a Hornets game has and is the true sports bargain in this town. Maybe you are not a fan of NBA basketball but believe me, you do not speak for every sports fan in this town.
Terry C. Cox
Charlotte
This article appears in Mar 6-12, 2002.
