|
Post by sliman on Jan 27, 2011 15:06:11 GMT -5
The additional improvements to the softball field were, I believe, part of the original plans. To not complete them, leaving softball facilities "intentionally" inferior to baseball, could create some Title IX issues.
I agree that the track is greatly needed and would benefit many intercollegiate sports in addition to track and would be a valuable resource for recreation and intramurals. As I recall, FITT fund raising did not reach its goal which led to postponement of lighting Brown Field (subsequently addressed) and construction of the track. Or perhaps the goal was met but costs of completed projects were greater than anticipated. Not sure which.
Another growing need is for a swimming pool. As with track, our athletes are competing at a disadvantage. Perhaps a new pool can become part of the new fieldhouse with various features many on this board dream about. Of course, a "champion" to fund a major portion of any of these causes (track, pool, fieldhouse, arena, etc.) can make them move higher on the priority list.
Regarding the hospital, it's probably an overstatement to say the university intends to purchase the site. Clearly the university is interested in and/or desirous of the property, but as noted, only if/when all environmental issues have been addressed. If environmental cleanup costs reach into several million dollars as some estimate, the purchase plus cleanup costs would probably be prohibitive to the university.
|
|
|
Post by vuweathernerd on Jan 27, 2011 15:16:18 GMT -5
re: the hospital-wouldn't porter have to bear the burden of the cleanup since its their site? or would this end up being a taxpayer or university funded project?
|
|