The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, September 10, 2004, Page 3, Image 3
New stadium might double as concert venue
■ STADIUM
Continued from page 1
made the joint-use stadium
difficult, such as the one-week
overlap in the college and
professional seasons. McGee was
also concerned about a plan to
start the college season in March
instead of February, which would
create a month overlap between
the Bombers and the Gamecocks.
“In order to increase the
popularity of college baseball, the
country is looking to make it a
complete summer sport,” McGee
said. “Conferences, mainly the Big
10 consisting of numerous
Northern schools have issued
concerns that they can’t
successfully start their seasons at
the beginning of February due to
weather concerns.”
McGee made it clear that the
upper-echelon college programs in
the country are not housed in joint
use stadiums and that the idea will
begin to phase out all over the
country with these' scheduling
changes.
Lost in the mix of the new
stadium plans are the Bombers,
who are left in Capital City
Stadium, where attendance has
been less than outstanding.
Attempts to reach Bomber’s
General Manager Rich Mozingo
were unsuccessful. The decision to
exclude the Bombers from the
stadium plan could lead to the
move of the team, which has been
in Columbia since 1983 when they
were known as the Columbia Mets.
A construction date has not been
set.
For the past two years, USC
has considered several options for
a new baseball stadium. One
option was to renovate the 3,400
seat Frye Field, which Sorensen
called a “short term solution”
because of cost and “significant
parking and traffic concerns.”
Another option was to build a
stadium at the State Farmers
Market across the street from
Williams-Brice Stadium. But USC
doesn’t own the property and
Sorensen said “significant issues”
need to be resolved before the land
“becomes available, if at all, for our
acquisition.” Sorensen said two and
a half years ago, it looked like
buying the land was a sure thing,
but since then there has been “no
concrete evidence” that USC can
buy the land soon.
But Sorensen said he would like
to eventually buy the property,
calling it “important to the future
growth and development of the
university.”
USC officials also considered a
joint-use stadium financed by a
private developer, but Sorensen
said he was concerned because
USC’s lease would be for 30 years,
“In order to increase
the popularity of
college baseball, the
country is looking to
make it a complete
summer sport.”
MIKE MCGEE
USC ATHLETICS DIRECTOR
which he said was not in the best
interests of the baseball program.
He said the stadium should be built
on USC-owned land, or its
equivalent, a 99-year lease.
The developers tried to appease
USC concerns by getting the land
owner to give 8 acres as a charitable
gift to USC and leasing the
remaining property for a 99 year
lease. But Sorensen said the
Bombers had not reached an
agreement with the land owner and
Sorensen was still concerned about
the “lack^of a guaranteed revenue
stream and uncertainties as to the
extent of the costs the University
would incur in managing and
maintaining the facility.”
USC head coach Ray Tanner said
he supported the proposal.
“On behalf of the Carolina
baseball program, we are thrilled
with the prospects of the University
building our own stadium,” Tanner
said in a news release. “I have had
I
the opportunity to be involved in
these deliberations and this is
without question the best avenue
for us to pursue.”
Sorensen’s proposal did leave an
option open that would allow
outdoor concerts and other such
events to be held at the stadium,
presenting an amphitheater-type
feel.
“I will support that idea 100
percent,” Coble said. “I think
anything that brings people to the
heart of Columbia will be a great
positive.”
Comments on this story ? E-mail K -
gamecocknews@gwm.sc.edu
9 ’
-1
■ PHARMACY
Continued from page 1
better health insurance coverage.
The University-provided,
annual coverage premium
amounts to $1,115. Graduate
assistants receive supplements
that amount to $200 off their
health insurance each year.
Kevin Simmonds commented
on this “mandatory health
insurance” issue in his Aug. 25
column.
Students “want to know just
when and how this passed
without so much as a whisper last
year, why the premium and
deductibles are so outrageous, and
why some graduate assistants get
almost everything covered by
their departments while others get
nothing. The cost of mandatory
health insurance? $1,200,”
Simmonds’ column read.
Third-year doctoral graduate
research fellow of the Arnold
School of Public Health Samuel
Walker said that Simmonds’
column misses the point.
Simmonds “summarized (the
healthcare requirement) into two
sentences that were very vague.
(The hard waiver enactment)
wasn’t done behind closed doors.
The characterization of the
premiums as outrageous is not
ground in reality,” Walker said.
Heather M. Brandt, research
associate in the Arnold School of
Public Health and former
Graduate Student Association
president, explained that in the
past, graduate students did not
have adequate health insurance.
The prevalent negative aspect
of the hard waiver system is the
substantial cost, but “$100 a
month is incredibly affordable for
comprehensive coverage,” Brandt
said.
Brandt and Walker, as well as
other like-minded graduate
students, began working on
graduate student health insurance
research in 2002 and examined
the hard waiver system as just one
viable option.
They believe the hard waiver
system’s incentives exceed the
drawbacks.
Brandt said, “Graduate
students can have health benefits,
preventive services, reduced
premiums and the administration
can help them be competitive.”
If only a small portion of the
University’s graduate students
partake in the "University plan,
premiums remain high; because
in the past, Brandt said, the main
people under the University
health insurance were using the
coverage, so the costs of their
healthcare covered by the plans
exceeded the premiums they
paid, causing the next year’s
premiums to rise.
“If you increase participation,
premiums go down,” Walker
said.
Walker said that healthier
students are more productive.
“The University cares enough
about its students to make sure
they are covered. The longer
term, the productivity will go up.
There are statistics to support
this. If they are healthy, they are
productive,” Walker said.
To alleviate high costs, the
hard waiver system allows
students to include their health
insurance coverage in with their
financial aid, Walker said.
“Graduate students
can have health
benefits, preventive
services, reduced
premiums and the
administration can
help them be
competitive.”
HEATHER BRANDT
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE IN THE
ARNOLD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
AND FORMER GRADUATE STUDENT
ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT
Simmonds said that he thinks
it’s a matter of choice for
employees and should be for «
graduates students as well.
The hard waiver requirement
“is hard on us,” Simmonds said.
“I don’t discount what the people
who drafted and did the research
have done, (but) their
conclusions, their time line for
really seeing relief is not *
beneficial to present students who j
have to bear the burden for future
gain. We’re bearing too much of
the burden.”
“Mandatory health insurance
is now a commonly accepted part
of most major research
universities,” Walker said. “It will
improve the quality of our care,
has the potential to stop rate
increases and even lower them,
makes the cost eligible on
financial aid applications (which)
was not the case before, and also
makes us more competitive in
terms of recruitment of quality
students.” ,
Comments on this story? E-mail
gamecocknen:s@gwm.sc.edu
Excerpts from USC President Andrew
Sorensen s letter to the Board of Trustees:
Sarge Frye Field is a
venerable facility revered by
Gamecock fans. Its chief
attraction, in addition to its rich
history as the home site of our
baseball program, is its location
on our campus and the access it
affords our students. Those
same attributes, however, also
present problems. At my
request, Dr. McGee engaged an
architect to evaluate the costs
and issues associated with a
possible expansion and up-grade
of Sarge Frye Field from its
current configuration of 3,400
seats. A copy of the architect's
analysis is attached. In addition
to cost 'issues, the architect
identified significant parking
and traffic concerns attendant to
this renovation project. As a
result, 1 have reluctantly
concluded that Sarge Frye Field
does not provide the best option
for .the future growth and long
term success of our baseball
program. It is, at best, a short
term solution.
There are many reasons to
recommend the location of a new
USC baseball stadium at the site
of the State Farmers Market.
Unfortunately, the University
does not own this property, and
significant issues remain to be
resolved before the property
becomes available, if at all, for
our possible acquisition. Given
the baseball program's immediate
need for a first-class facility
consistent with its national
stature, the State Farmers Market
is simply not a viable option at
this time. This conclusion should
not be interpreted to indicate that
I am no longer interested in
acquiring the State Farmers
Market property. To the
contrary, I strongly believe that
its acquisition is important to the
future growth and development
of the University. 1 will do
everything I can to support its
acquisition and hope each of you
will join me in our continuing
efforts to do so. The timing of
our acquisition remains elusive,
however. I recall that 2 1/2 years
ago it appeared that our
acquisition of die site was
imminent. In the period since
then, there has been no concrete
evidence that we will be able to
purchase the property in the near
future.
The University invested ranch
time and pursued vigorously the
concept of a joint-use stadium
financed by the City of Columbia.
Over the course of several months,
the University met and negotiated
with the Capital City Bombers in
an effort to develop an operating
agreement satisfactory to both
parties. During those discussions,
the University learned a great deal
about the financial needs of a
professional baseball team, and the
effects partnering with a
professional baseball team has on
financing the construction of a
stadium. This information assisted
us in evaluating the proposal
subsequently submitted by the
private developers (discussed
below). While the University and
the Bombers were able to reach a
tentative agreement for sharing a
joint-use stadium, the mayor
determined that the City was not
in a position to support fully
funding the construction of a
baseball stadium. Thus, this
option lias been eliminated.
Several weeks ago I attended a
meeting at City Hall, along with
representatives of the Capital City
Bombers and the City, where we
received a proposal from private
developers outlining a financial
plan for the construction of a
joint-use stadium. The materials
presented raised several concerns
for the University. First, the
proposal contemplated the
stadium is being constructed on
leased land (30 years). 1 found
such an arrangement not to be in
th e best interests of the University
and the long-term stability of the
baseball program; 1 believe the
stadium must be constructed on
property owned by the University,
or its equivalent (e.g., a 99-year
lease). Further, the Capital City
Bombers found the revenue and
attendance projections related to
Bombers’ games upon which the
financial proposal was based to be
overly optimistic. The University
had similar concerns with the
projections. Additionally, the
financing of the joint-use stadium
would require the issuance of
taxable bonds which would result
in increased construction costs due
to higher interest rates, and would
still require tax support through
the City.
Given the above, it is my
recommendation that the best
option available to the
University is to build a new USC
baseball stadium located near
the Colonial Center. This
recommendation is supported
by the athletics director and
head baseball coach ... Tax
exempt financing will be
available so as to decrease the
construction costs incurred by
the athletics department.
Financial support from the City
will be sought in recognition of
the benefits the City will enjoy
as a result of the stadium being
constructed in the Vista area. If
the City desires that an
amphitheater be constructed as
part of the stadium, the
University is open to such a
design.
I look forward to discussing
this matter with you in more
detail.
Sincerely yours,
Andrew A. Sorensen
University Ambassadors
...more than just a tour guide!
Attend an information session at the Visitor Center (in
McKissick) on Wednesday, September 15th at 6pm.
Applications due Friday, September 17th by 5pm. For more
information or if unable to attend, call the Visitor Center at
777-0169 or email us at visitor@sc.edu.
'
LACOSTE 1
Lourie’s Is within waiting distance for USC students, or you may park free in
the City of Columbia parking deck adjacent to our store at Assembly and Taylor.
9
For business. For pleasure. For life,
1601 Main Street ♦ Columbia, SC 2020] • (SOS) 766-0200