hburgnews.com

Comment from JW
Time: November 13, 2007, 10:35 am

Looks like JMU is plowing ahead with their plans to construct a new ball field in town. This despite local residents concern with the light pollution, traffic and siting for the facility. In several meeting with local residents JMU official kept stating that they wanted to “be good neighbors”, but at the same time refused to directly address concerns and issues raised by local residents.

The new stadium is to be located adjacent to the old Harrisonburg High School, which was sold to JMU by the city council a few years back. A paltry sum of only $11 million dollars was asked by the council for the facility. The council at the time was composed of several members of JMU’s board of visitors. Other options besides an outright purchase of the land and facilities were never fully examined. Since the sale the city has incurred far more costs to aquire land and build new schools than what would have been required to perform the minor renovations required to make the facility into another productive asset to the community.

Why hasn’t JMU looked at some of the other land they have aquired in town? For instance, if the baseball fields were co-located with the yet to be built intramural fields on Port Republic road, then it seems like they could address a lot of community concerns at once.

Comment from Emmy
Time: November 13, 2007, 10:38 am

I’m one of the few people in this town who isn’t overly bothered by this. I get the historic impact and I’m all for saving old buildings, but I’ve always thought that stadium looked awful. The new stadium will be more appealing, more useful, and still honor our vets. Flame on!

Comment from JW
Time: November 13, 2007, 11:16 am

The issue isn’t saving a historic building. Your entirely correct on thinking the old stadium is pretty atrocious. JMU moving 2 or 3 ballfields and the associated parking structures, field lights to that location is the issue.

The issue is that changing the use of that particular parcel of land is going to have enormous impacts on the surrounding communities. As is Chestnut, Willow and Dogwood experience some of the highest traffic densities and speeds of all residential neighborhood roads in town. On any weekday you can see people hitting 45+ mph on the section in front of the old armory, it’s become a major cut-thru road and is being used in a manner it’s was never intended for. Being exceptionally wide and free flowing doesn’t help.

With JMU’s new ballfields, the concern is that traffic will only get worse. The existing field lights certainly contribute to a lot of light pollution in the valley, and can be annoying to the neighbors, even several blocks away. It seems that between the ineptness of Harrisonburg to put together a good traffic plan (synchronized traffic light for instance), combined with the constant growth of JMU’s infrastructure is going to lead to ever worsening congestion in and around town.

We need more forward thinking people and policies to make sure that Harrisonburg remains a good community with balanced growth. We all can name 5 or more bad traffic spots in town, these were either designed poorly (Little NOVA shopping center, main JMU campus entrance on Port Rd, etc.) or traffic densities and use has exceeded what was predicted (Rt. 42 and Rt. 33 traffic patterns, hence the shortcutting thru sunset height additions).

So it’s not about historic preservation, it’s really more about smart growth and proper integration into existing communities.

Comment from Frank J Witt
Time: November 13, 2007, 11:20 am

Emmy, your point is more precise. It is not going to be a “new ball field’ it will be a “New” ball field. The ball field and stadium is there already. They are going to knock down a deteriorating stadium and re-build it WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. JMU is not asking the taxpayers of this town for the money.

I guess it is better to JW to just let an old dying stadium to fall apart that it is to have someone buy it and then create something nice that JMU already stated will be used by many other teams than just JMU teams.

Comment from finnegan
Time: November 13, 2007, 11:25 am

To be fair, a portion of JMU’s money comes from state tax money. And JW never said “let an old dying stadium to fall apart.”

This is the sort of thing JW is referring to.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: November 13, 2007, 11:31 am

Frank. By definition, I believe all of JMU’s money with the exception of student fees and alumni giving, are taxpayer dollars.

I think the think that pissed most people off about this is that, I believe, JMU assured the community that the stadium would not be touched, and within a year, they announced that they were taking it down.

Not unfamiliar with college towns, I’m not certain that JMU’ s interests and the interest of the community are even close to being in alignment.

Comment from Emmy
Time: November 13, 2007, 11:37 am

Well, I’m just looking at if from my eyes only :) Personally, I like stadium lights. I think its neat to go outside and know that there’s a game going on. I’m weird like that. I’m also thinking that traffic is only a problem there before an after games. That’s why once you’ve lived here a while you learn to avoid the convo before and after game time. The rest of the time, its really no different. They could build a stadium somewhere else and then we’d be complaining about that, and the old stadium either wouldn’t be used, wouldn’t be maintained, or it would be maintained at a high cost for very little use. At least they are using a space that is already being used for the same purpose. But like I said, that’s just how I see it and I realize a lot of other people don’t.

Comment from Karl Magenhofer
Time: November 13, 2007, 11:39 am

You’d think from JW’s comments that JMU was taking down some trees in front of Cally’s…jeez.

“Several members of council” (that voted for the sale) did not sit on the JMU Board of Visitors. Only Mayor Rogers was on the board. Sorry to ruin the conspiracy aspect of the argument.

I also find it hard to swallow that traffic would be worse on any given baseball night than it was when Harrisonburg High School used those fields. A Friday night football game would have caused much more traffic than any JMU baseball or softball game will. Light pollution…JW might have a point there.

Comment from Frank J Witt
Time: November 13, 2007, 11:56 am

Dave, I did not take that into account. Thanks. But I believe that goes for all state run colleges as well as the “other” campus in town. I would not like to see what kind of services we would have if JMU, students, employees and faculty just up and disappeared.

Comment from andy
Time: November 13, 2007, 12:51 pm

To quote David Briggman, “By definition, I believe all of JMU’s money with the exception of student fees and alumni giving, are taxpayer dollars.”

The 2007-2008 James Madison University budget is $287,797,815. Of that total $71,084,352 is from the Commonwealth general fund, otherwise known as taxes. Sooooo, that’s 24.6% of the the university’s budget coming from taxes. Is that the “all of JMU’s money” to which you were referring Dave?

And and BTW, that tax money is from the entire state — not just locally. So the university’s over $300 million economic impact locally far outweighs the local portion of tax money going to JMU.

But, I guess the university’s interests and the communities interests are not “in alignment.”

BTW, all this budget information is publicly available from the Commonwealth, or as always on the JMU web at http://www.jmu.edu/budgetmgmt/wm_library/Revenue_Source_&_Major_Expense_07-08.doc

Oh, and as far as JW’s comment, “refusing to directly address neighbors concerns…” Hello? Design is barely in the early stages!! Construction hasn’t even started yet!! How on earth do you have the temerity to state that neighbor’s concerns are not addressed when nothing’s been built!?

Sheesh. It’s getting harder and harder to run a decent institution of higher edumacashun around here these days.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: November 13, 2007, 1:51 pm

Actually, Andy, you wrote absolutely nothing different than what I stated:

I wrote “aside from student fees and alumni giving” which includes TUITION, COMPREHENSIVE FEES, ROOM FEES, BOARD FEES, AND PARKING FEES.

That leaves about $19 million is miscellaneous revenue sources. Nobody said local taxpayers are the sole source of revenue for a state school. And you conveniently left out the increased burden on local taxpayers because of the improvements to local infrastructure of all types which needs to be maintained in large part because of the presence of some 16,000 extra bodies around 9 months a year.

Comment from Gxeremio
Time: November 13, 2007, 2:27 pm

Dave is absolutely right when he points out that JMU promised not to “greatly change, rename, or destroy Memorial Stadium”. In fact, when veterans’ groups were upset about JMU taking over the stadium they were basically called ridiculous.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: November 13, 2007, 2:39 pm

Thanks for finding that, Jeremy. I’m just wondering why no one is asking JMU if their words to this community from their spokesmen should ever be believed again.

Of course, that’s not the first time Andy Perrine was caught stretching the truth like a piece of bubble gum.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: November 13, 2007, 2:40 pm

You guys think “andy” is Andy Perrine?

Comment from JW
Time: November 13, 2007, 3:15 pm

“Oh, and as far as JW’s comment, “refusing to directly address neighbors concerns…” Hello? Design is barely in the early stages!! Construction hasn’t even started yet!! How on earth do you have the temerity to state that neighbor’s concerns are not addressed when nothing’s been built!?”

So why when the local community asked JMU to specifically address issues they were raising about the plans did they meet and basically glad hand the community members instead of offering to work with them?

Basically the message presented to that community by JMU, whether official or not, was:
“It’s gonna be great to be your neighbor…” end of story.
No “Ok, well lets work together to make sure your concerns are addressed. We can make this fit in with the community.”

If that’s your plans, so be it. But don’t be surprised when you have a lot of locals who are not enthusiastic about your plans and the way the university has pursued them. It seems to hearken back to other rather strong armed tactics that the University has pursued in the past, i.e. Kyger Funeral Home, etc.

Yes JMU brings a lot of money into the community. The University isn’t going to move, and neither is the rest of Harrisonburg. A smart plan for the growth of JMU, as they try and reach 25k+ students in the next few years, would be to solicit community involvement and respect their concerns while working with the city to grow in a sustainable manner.

Comment from Barnabas
Time: November 13, 2007, 3:53 pm

I’d like to see the Wall of Fame thats at Memorial Stadium expanded. Or maybe even incorperate into the new stadium a Valley League and RCBL - Hall of Fame with the History of the leages.

Comment from Justin
Time: November 13, 2007, 4:09 pm

…and to think they got rid of all that money for those “other” sports.

Comment from JW
Time: November 13, 2007, 7:07 pm

It is Andy Perrine.

Amazing bit of reasoning for the “associate vice president for communications and marketing in the division of Advancement at James Madison University”

and to his wonderfully illogical statement…
“Oh, and as far as JW’s comment, “refusing to directly address neighbors concerns…” Hello? Design is barely in the early stages!! Construction hasn’t even started yet!! How on earth do you have the temerity to state that neighbor’s concerns are not addressed when nothing’s been built!?”

As stated before, you should talk to the community throughout the entire process, and yes Andy, that means before construction starts. after you put down grade stakes and start moving dirt it’s a bit too late to make modifications to the plans.

Wouldn’t you want to be involved if they had instead bought Mountain View Elementary school, and wanted to put a new stadium in your back yard?

Comment from JohnLL
Time: November 13, 2007, 7:52 pm

Interesting hearing comments about light pollution- when it comes to summertime and lights on a baseball field, I am drawn like a moth to flame.

I don’t understand why JMU would ever say that they would not destroy the stadium, as it’s falling apart.

I obviously have a biased view of this matter, but I’m looking forward to seeing what will be erected on the spot… JLL

Comment from David Miller
Time: November 13, 2007, 8:19 pm

Two points. Devil’s Advocate style.
1.) “Construction hasn’t even started yet!!”,

that’s kinda the best time to plan. Before you build.

2.) “But, I guess the university’s interests and the communities interests are not “in alignment.”

When two groups have conflicting needs then misalignment between the end result and the party’s differing goals is unavoidable. Force/cajole compromise, otherwise don’t be surprised when railroaded.

Comment from David Miller
Time: November 13, 2007, 8:21 pm

Don’t just blame JMU for growth and don’t blame residents for apposing it’s in their backyard.

Comment from andy
Time: November 13, 2007, 9:47 pm

Yes, Andy is Andy Perrine. I thought everyone at hburgnews knew that. No skullduggery intended. The link on my name here goes directly to my humor blog, which has my name on it.

And as far as my stretching the truth like bubble gum, Dave, I would suggest a more careful reading of the DNR story quoted above. The passage of the story which contains my statement reads,

“Before the City Council voted to sell the property to the university on Tuesday night, JMU spokesman Andy Perrine hand-delivered a letter to 130 homes surrounding the property, in which he explained the university’s intentions.

“Over the long term,” the note reads, “any major improvements to Memorial Stadium would include preserving the World War II Veterans Memorial.”

My statement was about the memorial, not the stadium. All along we were thinking that the stadium was falling apart and that we could help. The university never said that the university would preserve the stadium.

If the Daily News Record reporter chose to interperet my statement as, “James Madison University officials say they have no plans to greatly change, rename or destroy Memorial Stadium or the historic section of the former Harrisonburg High School building on South High Street,” that’s the paper’s business.

Read the article again, Dave and Gxeremio, I never said what you attributed to me. I challenge you to produce the statement. If you can not, I would like an apology here on hburgnews.com as soon as possible. You’ve implied that I lied and if you care about your integrity, you’ll apologize.

And Dave, your description of the university’s funding depicted the university as funded mostly taxpayer money. My response was to clarify that the university is mostly student funded.

Also, please stop throwing erroneous numbers around. The university’s estimate for growth is 21000, not 25000. We have to file our student enrollement with the Commonwealth. And by 2012, it’s no more than 21000. Check the publicly available information. It’s fun to print rumors, but it’s irresponsible.

And finally, we did meet with the community before dirt was ever moved. We met at a picnic at Pete Bsumek’s house with many members of the neighborhood which backs up to Memorial Hall long before any dirt was moved. We took their concerns to the university planners and they listened. Some members of the neighborhood asked to sit with the architect and we stated directly at the time that it was not possible, but that their concerns would be communicated to the decision makers. That is happening and will continue to happen.

Please, this is a decent blog. Let’s not loosely quote stories or print rumor numbers. It’s just not civil. Thanks.

Comment from JW
Time: November 13, 2007, 10:22 pm

Andy,
Thanks for the follow up.
“And finally, we did meet with the community before dirt was ever moved. We met at a picnic at Pete Bsumek’s house with many members of the neighborhood which backs up to Memorial Hall long before any dirt was moved. We took their concerns to the university planners and they listened. Some members of the neighborhood asked to sit with the architect and we stated directly at the time that it was not possible, but that their concerns would be communicated to the decision makers. That is happening and will continue to happen.”

I think the communities main complaint is that the lines of communication are not open. Great, you took their concerns to your committee. However they weren’t told that that had happenned, or that it even was going to happen.

You see communication needs to be a 2 way street, and even just sending out a notice and saying something like:
“The concerns raised by the community surrounding the proposed JMU baseball and softball complex have been noted and our advisory board is taking them into consideration with future plans….”

That would be a whole lot better, and you wouldn’t have people asking questions and thinking that JMU doesn’t care about what they have to say.

For a great recent example of community involvement in a large scale project, I’d recommend that you talk to Elwood Burge or Mark Healey at the Dry River Ranger District. They’ve been a very helpful and communicative part of the upcoming Big Run (logging) Project in the national forest. As it was planned it would have disrupted several miles of local recreational trails. But with good and open communication and meetings with local communities and stakeholders they managed to come up with several alternatives that still met the original project goals and addressed the concerns voiced by the community.

Yes it’s a long process, and it takes a lot of work on both sides, but at the end of the project it will make a world of difference to all involved.

Comment from Gxeremio
Time: November 13, 2007, 10:27 pm

Umm…I directly quoted a story that the whole world can read for themselves on the link provided. I didn’t mention your name or attribute anything to you. What am I supposed to apologize for? That you were supposedly misquoted at a time when the very misquote you object to served your purposes - calming opposition to JMU’s purchase of the stadium? Did you write to the DNR after the story was published to correct their supposed misperception? After all, the whole story was about (and titled) “JMU Pledges Preservation.”

The minutes of the City Council meeting that approved the sale reveal the text of the letter you, Andy, distributed to the neighborhood, which includes, “Minor upgrades to Memorial Stadium would be part of our near term plans. Over the long term, any major improvements to Memorial Stadium would include preserving the World War II Veterans Memorial.” Councilman Chenault commented, “I want to preserve the original high school building and the additions and Memorial Stadium. It is my belief that JMU will utilize the stadium very consistently with the veterans theme and will even improve upon it so that all veterans will proud of the facility.” [sic]

Comment from andy
Time: November 13, 2007, 11:05 pm

Gxeremio;

Your original post clearly implies that the university promised that the stadium would not be altered. Here’s your post:

“Dave is absolutely right when he points out that JMU promised not to “greatly change, rename, or destroy Memorial Stadium”. In fact, when veterans’ groups were upset about JMU taking over the stadium they were basically called ridiculous.”

You wrote above that “JMU promised not to” and then quoted the reporter’s interpretation of my comment, which reads, “James Madison University officials say they have no plans to greatly change, rename or destroy Memorial Stadium or the historic section of the former Harrisonburg High School building on South High Street.”

Please reread your linked article more carefully. You are wrong. I wrote in the letter to the community, which I hand delivered, “Over the long term any major improvements to Memorial Stadium would include preserving the World War II Veterans Memorial.”

That’s why you need to apologize. You attributed the paper’s interperetation of my remarks to me. And it’s not true. Please read it again. I encourage all to follow Gxeremio’s links to the paper and judge for yourself. The university never stated that the stadium would be untouched.

The university from the beginning was planning to completetly redo the stadium, which to most people’s opinion is the right thing to do. After doing a more thorough inspection, it was decided that the stadium was in very bad shape. Hence the demolition and new construction. All the while making good on our promise to honor veterans of foriegn wars — one of whom is my father.

It’s now an hour and ten minutes since I challenged Dave Briggman to prove how I stretched the truth. And nothing.

Comment from Gxeremio
Time: November 13, 2007, 11:09 pm

If even one person who is not Andy agrees that I should apologize for my first post in this thread, I will. But I’m doubting anyone is seeing things the way Andy is right now. Also, are you preserving the WWII memorial, or tearing it down and building a new one?

Comment from andy
Time: November 13, 2007, 11:28 pm

Thanks, Gxeremio. Stand up post. I appreciate your not automatically gainsaying my posts. Rare indeed.

And as far as “tearing it down and building a new one,” I don’t know at this point. I’ll post those plans as soon as I know them.

But I hope that this Sunday’s Veteran’s Day event proves that we are interested in honoring local veterans. In what ever way the university moves forward, the spirit of that honor is implicit. We at the univeristy have fathers, uncles, grandfathers, brothers, mothers, sisters and aunts who fought in foriegn wars — just like everyone else in the community.

Comment from Dana
Time: November 14, 2007, 8:45 am

wow. . . where to even begin. As a home owner/occupant on Willow Street, I received the letter from JMU delivered by Andy Perrine, that said that JMU was going to be a “good neighbor”. And some degree they have: the old high school has never looked better, the landscaping has improved and is much more cared for, and trafffic has decreased, & and I do enjoy the pressence of the JMU campus police patrol. However, having been at the picnic at Pete Bsumeks house this summer, I can’t really say that I feel that the “good neighbor” promise is being lived up to. Communication is a two way street, and I feel that the neighborhood has tried various times to explain to JMU what our concerns are. When Andy, Don and Jamie came to the picnic, they brought along a rendering of a possible layout for the stadium, practice fields and a potential tennis complex. We got to see how the stadium will be repositioned to be closer to Memorial Hall (for parking concerns), and to keep the sun from being in the players eyes. When we brought up our concerns, namely, light pollution (the proposed stadium, will have more/bigger lighting) and that they are planning to cover up a stream, that will run directly under the field, as it will be reposistioned. If seemed to fall on deaf ears. We were told that a few pretty trees could be planted to block the lights. Which, ok, fine, in 20 years the trees will be perfect. But the steam has been a big concern, as it DOES flood as it is now, on to the existing football area. It also is home to lots of wildlife, including the famous one-legged duck, who come back every year to reproduce. I’ve seen egrets as well, which I believe are on Virginia’s protected list. I think I personally feel that for all of the university’s talk of “neighbor”-ness as well as their new “green” programs, it seems that they talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Comment from charles chenault
Time: November 14, 2007, 8:49 am

JMU’s action regading upgrades to Memorial Hall and the plans for the improvements to Memorial Stadium are consistant with my statment referenced in the above post and in accordance with at least what I always believed and hoped were the University’s plans. Additionally, the comments from Barnabas regarding the Valley League are appropriate and should be considered. The Veterans groups we have talked seem to be quite satisfied with the continued tribute to them and their brethren that the new stadium will accord them. For what it is worth, I consider this a community project. I am always happy to talk to anyone about what I see going on in the city and at Memorial Hall and the stadium and the reasons for doing it. Just give me a call, or perhaps we can have a relaxed group meeting at your venue of choice.
Thanks - Charlie

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: November 14, 2007, 9:21 am

Maybe I missed something, but isn’t the stadium a set of concrete steps with a concession stand underneath? I’m not clear what that has to do with honoring veterans. We have a statue, a cannon, and a former high school honoring veterans, not to mention a monument somewhere near the stadium. If we name everything in town for veterans, we won’t have anything left to name for, just as an example, former mayors.

But if the emotional level of the debate has crept beyond the reality of the structure, that still doesn’t answer some of the underlying questions. For instance, did inaccurate reporting by the DNR, exacerbated by the paper’s lack of institutional memory, make it appear the concrete steps would be left intact? And did anyone at JMU or City Hall do anyone else a disservice by deciding to leave it alone because trying to keep the DNR straight is a full-time job?

Comment from andy
Time: November 14, 2007, 9:23 am

JW,

I did not respond adequately to your post about open communication, so here goes.

The picnic at Pete Bsumek’s house was very much a two-way communication. I don’t know if you were there, but the exchange was full, honest and civil. At that meeting I encouraged the group to organize so that the university could communicate effectively with the neighborhood.

Since the picnic, not much has changed with the plans we displayed. Madison is a large state agency and all construction plans are coordinated through Richmond. Things like this take time — especially in a year when budget uncertainties loom in the near future. So really, there has been nothing to communicate since the picnic. It was not glad-handing as you portray it. We were there to listen and work to satisfy the neighborhood’s concern.

As always, our folks in the JMU office of Public Affairs are always willing to meet. Don Egle and Jamie Marsh are engaged and always prepared to talk. If they don’t have the exact answer to a question, they’ll work to get it.

David Briggman wrote, “Of course, that’s not the first time Andy Perrine was caught stretching the truth like a piece of bubble gum.” It’s now just about 12 hours since I challenged him to produce the evidence of my stretching the truth.

His silence speaks volumes about his credibility and is a tacit withdrawal of his accusation.

Comment from Gxeremio
Time: November 14, 2007, 9:34 am

Truth be told, I don’t care what they do with the stadium.

My main concern here is that JMU does what it says it will do, and not try to pull the wool over the public’s eyes about its intentions. If they said they will preserve the high school and stadium, that’s what they should do. Andy is saying that wasn’t the pledge, and it may not have been, but he also doesn’t seem to have been eager to correct the public perception that that’s what they were going to do. As associate vice president for communications and marketing, correcting a patently false story about JMU would fall under his jurisdiction.

If JMU simply promised that they would preserve the WWII memorial, which they very clearly did, then that’s what they need to do.

I like JMU. It’s the college I went to as an undergrad and am going to for masters studies. It needs to act fairly and honestly in its dealings with the community.

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: November 14, 2007, 9:48 am

Regarding public perceptions created by the DNR and similar local newspapers: A good story on its local news pages will be 80-90 percent right, correct and accurate. I said that when I was city editor there, and I said it when the paper was printing fabrications about me and my family. It’s the nature of the beast. A person or a representative of an institution regularly mentioned in the paper reads not for information, but to find out what perception the paper is creating. Every story creates the choice: accept whatever it is in the story that is not quite right, or be pegged as a complainer by a newspaper management that does not easily admit error.

Comment from andy
Time: November 14, 2007, 9:59 am

Gxeremio,

If I were to correct every error in the media’s reports about JMU, I would have time for nothing else. Also, Joe nailed it; I would be quickly cast as a complainer and then the relationship with the media would be more difficult.

And truly, it’s the media’s repsonsibility to get it right, not mine. That’s the fourth estate.

Maybe a blog such as this is the answer, Gxeremio. You can hear directly from me — the university is preserving the high school and the veterans memorial. That’s what we promised and that’s what we’ll do. Whether the physical memorial itself will be exactly as it is now, I can’t say. In fact, many of us believe the vets deserve a more impressive memorial. But we promised that the stadium always will honor veterans of foriegn wars and we’ll stick to it.

Comment from Lisa
Time: November 14, 2007, 10:03 am

JW, as a resident of the neighborhood you claim JMU has left in the dark, I must kindly ask you to stop speaking on our behalf. I bought my house knowing full well there was a stadium behind it, as did everyone else on our street. It was part of the draws for me. As one of the few people who actually attends ball games at Memorial Stadium regularly, I am excited that the stadium is getting a much-needed makeover. I was one of the loudest voices of discontent when rumors began flying about things that JMU was going to do to make our lives miserable. But then we had the BBQ and it turns out that (for now), none of those things are going to come to pass. I am happy with the plans. The ball field is going to be oriented away from our neighborhood and moved farther closer to the HS, meaning that the lights will no longer point towards our bedrooms as they do now. The entrances are going to be on the opposite side of our neighborhood, so traffic won’t have as much of an impact as it could. Plus, as Emmy mentioned, traffic will only be bad at the start and the end of the games, and again - it’s one of those things you deal with when you move in next to a ball stadium. For now, the creek near our house isn’t going to be paved over, which was and still remains another major concern of ours. Yes, there are some people in our neighborhood who are still upset, but they don’t represent the majority of us who attended the meeting, were satisfied by what we heard and are cautiously optimistic about our future relationship with JMU. I personally believe that my concerns have been addressed. If my neighbor decided to build a fence, I would like to be informed that it was going to happen, that they weren’t going to infringe on my property line, etc…but I certainly wouldn’t demand to have a say in how they designed it or built it. I don’t agree with all the projects JMU has pursued around the city, but in this case, I believe it is going to breathe new life in a badly worn stadium.

Comment from finnegan
Time: November 14, 2007, 10:25 am

Woah. I need to check in here more often. Dana left a comment that got caught in the filter (see above, at 8:45am).

I know pretty much everyone involved in this heated discussion (Andy and Gxeremio are both great guys, and I think they both have a point) so I don’t know what to say, other than to agree with David: JMU is bound to expand and build, and the locals are bound to resist it.

I think one of the roles of spokesperson for any organization (governmental or otherwise) is punching bag. They don’t make the decisions, but they’re supposed to make the public happy with the decisions that are made without them (how many Press Secretaries has Bush been through now?).

Comment from Gxeremio
Time: November 14, 2007, 10:25 am

I know the DNR gets a lot wrong, believe me. But when the entire theme of the article is wrong and you let it slide, it seems odd. I have to wonder if you would have reacted the same way (by doing nothing) if the article had been wrong in the other direction, making JMU look bad instead of good. As it was, you let a convenient misperception stand.

And yes, I like blogs too.

Comment from Emmy
Time: November 14, 2007, 11:11 am

Thank for the comments from those living nearby. Clearly there are differing opinions. Lisa, I’m with you in thinking that this is something you take on when you move near a ball field! I can’t imagine that anyone who has lived there for any length of time, or even moved there recently thought that all would always be left as it is right now (no matter who owned it) because the whole area around the school and including the stadium needs a major overhaul. JMU rents my church their auditorium and classrooms on Sunday for church and they are very good to us. But every Sunday when I drive around the back of the school and see the tennis courts and soccer field I always think of how bad they look. I hope JMU makes improvements and I hope they listen to everyone’s concerns. I can guarantee that they won’t make everyone happy.

Comment from andy
Time: November 14, 2007, 11:20 am

Actually, Gxeremio, we felt when the article you cite came out that it was a problem. We were not happy with the theme of the article — no matter how positive — because we knew all along that a complete redo of the stadium was possible. Your perception that we have somehow hoodwinked the community now that plans are moving forward is precisely what we feared.

But like Joe said, if we constantly tried to correct incorrect media reports — incorrect in our perception or in fact — reporters and editors would eventually kill us.

You know, refering to Finnegan’s point, it’s hard to be spokesperson because of the punching bag aspect. But to be a reporter or editor in the media and to constantly hear how you get everything wrong is an annoyance of equal if not higher magnitude.

Comment from David Miller
Time: November 14, 2007, 12:57 pm

Andy

I just read some of your blog entries. First and foremost, they cracked me up. Second, get some sleep man. Most of your posts are very AM.

Maybe I can shed some light on this. Or just add my opinion to the choir. Whichever, here goes.

The quote from your letter to City Council “Minor Upgrades to Memorial Stadium would be part of our near term plans. Over the long term, any major improvements to Memorial Stadium would include preserving the World War II Veterans Memorial”.

I don’t actually care about this issue. The deals done, my alma mater has been sold and I no longer care. All people want is to feel like they aren’t being lied to. That’s all I want. I know things can’t always go my way but your quote is misleading when supplanted a year later with “because we knew all along that a complete redo of the stadium was possible.” That’s a drastically different quote. Not in its truthfulness of a statement but in the insinuation that it makes (it insinuates non-truths). That’s all.

Gxeremio seems to want the truth (the whole truth) from a public institution. Seems fair. Joe’s point about the stadium being in poor condition and basic construction is very true. JW’s concerns and interests “This despite local residents concern with the light pollution, traffic and siting for the facility.” seem valid and should be a basis for judgment of the projects future. We should all know that Andy is a supportive member of our community with a wife and children’s interests to look after. We aren’t talking about Haliburton taking over Harrisonburg here. Lisa likes the plans. Dana points out environmental impact that certainly should (and I presume will) be addressed. Charlie put it best when saying that this is a community plan. If we are all involved and everyone benefits, then the only hurdle is appropriate compromise on everyone’s part.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: November 14, 2007, 1:08 pm

Andy,

Please don’t ever try to speak for me. I am not glued to this or any blog, so please don’t assume anything if I don’t post something back with even 12 hours. Contrary to what you or other may believe, I don’t sit around all day just twiddling my thumbs — I don’t work for State government as you do.

Your characterization of my lawsuit against JMU over their illegal weapons policy proved to me that your word couldn’t be trusted. You don’t so much directly lie as you do mislead by concealing facts. Fortunately, your Public Safety Department adheres to Virginia law much more than we can trust the University as a whole to do.

If you had a problem with the entire content of the JMU article on the stadium that, then perhaps, you should have written a letter to the editor on behalf of JMU, which is not too difficult to get published, or, JMU could have taken out an ad in the paper clearly articulating the University’s intentions.

It is not the responsibility of the community to ensure that JMU’s intentions are accurately reported by the DNR or any other media. I think that responsibility lies with your office. If you’re unwilling to accept that responsibility, perhaps you should seek a replacement. As it is, JMU’s missteps in the community always to be reported in a matter unfavorable to JMU…perhaps that’s something lacking in you and your coworker’s ability to accurately communicate the intent of the University?

Comment from Ben
Time: November 14, 2007, 1:38 pm

DM- Excellent post.

As I find myself doing quite often when I am working with an academic group of 6th and 7th graders I am managing, I would point out the most constructive route this discourse can take is for someone to propose a a structure in which to create a two-way conversation between the university and the community. I don’t see any evidence of formalizing the interaction having been done, so there’s no positive outcome from rehashing concerns from the past.

You each have valid observations and concerns, and defensible positions.

Being the face of a large public entity without real authority is a difficult position to be in. Being a small piece of a community potentially impacted in a large way by a large public entity is a difficult position to be in. Perhaps together, with the help of an often inaccurate media, you can make a difference.

Comment from finnegan
Time: November 14, 2007, 1:44 pm

Briggman, there’s no need to throw insults around like “I don’t sit around all day just twiddling my thumbs — I don’t work for State government as you do.” You’re out of line with that little jab.

Why is it not the media’s responsibility to get the facts straight? Isn’t that what they get paid to do (albeit a paltry wage)? Why should it be anyone else’s responsibility?

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: November 14, 2007, 2:32 pm

It’s the community’s own responsibility to get the facts straight. However, when someone from JMU’s PR machine comes on here whining about the alleged inaccuracy of an entire JMU article, then I think it was incumbent upon JMU to engage the community using whatever means necessary to get the ACCURATE message out.

This is not a “gray” issue, it is one of being “black” and “white”. Either Heather’s version is untrue, or Perrine’s.

In this instance, I happen to believe Heather’s story, although I am willing to concede that some DNR reports of government meetings where I have been in attendance have often caused me to wonder whether I, in fact, was at the same meeting.

It’s now been an hour and 20 minutes and Andy’s made no reply to my accusations.

His silence speaks volumes about his credibility and is a tacit withdrawal of his accusation. ;-)

Comment from Gxeremio
Time: November 14, 2007, 2:36 pm

I’m pretty sure we all (Dave and Andy included) prefer a truthful and accurate media to an untruthful or inaccurate one. It is definitely the media’s responsibility to get the facts straight.

The question here, though, is how we should respond when the media doesn’t meet its responsibility and writes an inaccurate story about us or something we know about. I think we owe it to the public interest to address glaring errors, and especially those in which we are given credit for something we don’t deserve. In this case, no one but JMU would have had the authority to clarify that JMU was not, in fact, promising to preserve the stadium they had just purchased. If anyone else but JMU had tried to correct the paper’s misperception, it would have been viewed as sour grapes. I understand choosing not to correct minor errors in an otherwise truthful story, but to ignore a story in which the entire premise is flawed seems odd for a university department whose mandate is communication with the public.

I don’t want to be drawn in to the personal attacks that have gone on in this thread, against Andy or against me or Dave. I still don’t see that anything I’ve written or quoted is cause for an apology from me. This is really turning into a tempest in a teapot, obviously. I certainly am not passionate about this issue. I just want to encourage people to deal honestly and fairly with one another, on this issue and in others.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: November 14, 2007, 2:49 pm

Jeremy,

I don’t think you owe anybody an apology, unless you feel a need to do so.

Comment from finnegan
Time: November 14, 2007, 2:58 pm

…or unless you’re threatened with a defamation suit, and essentially forced to apologize — in which case it’s really heartfelt.

Comment from Emmy
Time: November 14, 2007, 2:59 pm

Dave, you’ve called someone out on this blog for waiting too long (in your opinion) to respond so don’t get defensive when someone does it to you.

And yeah…what Brent said.

Comment from finnegan
Time: November 14, 2007, 3:06 pm

Are you referring to this, Emmy?

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: July 17, 2007, 4:42 pm

I think it’s over, finnegan, Benny’s silence — yet again when confronted with his own words — is deafening.

or this:

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: October 25, 2007, 8:39 pm

Damn, 2.5 hours of silence on that last question…you guys must be thinking really hard. I caution you though, when my 3 year old thinks hard, he sometimes forgets to go to the bathroom and ends up pooping in his pants.

I don’t suggest that.

Comment from Emmy
Time: November 14, 2007, 3:09 pm

Yes either of those will work :)

Comment from Gxeremio
Time: November 14, 2007, 3:13 pm

Sheesh…sometimes watching you guys interact with Dave is like watching a Democratic debate when they pile on Hillary. Or a presidential press conference. Only more interesting.

May God save us all from being sarcastically quoted. :)

Comment from andy
Time: November 14, 2007, 3:24 pm

Woohoo! I love it. Public relations advice from David Briggman. Hburgnews.com — your one-stop shop for community news, personal insults and now professional advice!

As far as speaking for you Dave - you didn’t even get my tweak. A few weeks back on this blog you posted and then reposted about 2 hours later that the person you were insulting that day had not responded and so the insults must be true. I was having you on.

Plus, I would never ever ever want to speak for you ever, Dave. Heck, I can’t even fathom what goes on in your mind, much less what you might say next.

And as far as my request for evidence that I or the university purposefully mislead in any of this, still nothing.

At the time of the story cited ad nauseum above, the university had no idea what was going to happen with the stadium. That’s why the statement is only about preserving the memorial. As soon as we had ascertained that the stadium was in bad enough shape that it needed replacing, I and my staff met with the neighborhood adjacent to the ballpark and informed them. This was months ago.

Dave and others, sorry you didn’t get the news until Veterans Day, but we informed the folks most closely affected by the decision.

Finally, if the university issued information to the media about every new development in what is a very large and sustained process, the media and the public would stop paying attention. That’s how public relations works.

But if you want to know how public relations really ought to work, ask Dave Briggman.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: November 14, 2007, 3:25 pm

Emmy,

Guess you didn’t see my little “winky eye”, huh?

Jeremy called it right…maybe when I’m being sarcastic, I need to spell it out for some of the more dull-normal participants?

Would that assist you, Emmy, finnegan?

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: November 14, 2007, 3:33 pm

Always nice to have state employees on taxpayer dollars throwing out disinformation on blogs.

What goes on it my mind?

God knows it’s a terrible thing to expect government agencies, of which JMU is one, to follow the law and make some semblance of effort to ensure that accurate information is given about the intent of the University to the surrounding community.

JMU couldn’t could follow state law with respect to their firearms policy, which is why the A.G.’s Office fire JMU as a client. As far as the accuracy of information that YOU have personally imparted, I think we’ve demonstrated it has been, at times, inaccurate.

Comment from finnegan
Time: November 14, 2007, 3:34 pm

No thanks, Dave. You said, “I am not glued to this or any blog, so please don’t assume anything if I don’t post something back with even 12 hours,” (no winky face there) but have criticized others for slow or no response to your comments in the recent past.

I know this thread is rapidly straying away from the original topic, but for what it’s worth, Kelly Jasper had a great write-up about The Latino Underground in the DNR last month, but got the names of the interviewees swapped in the lead. Enrique is from Mexico, Milton is from El Salvador. But I didn’t feel like calling or emailing to make a correction. Anyone who reports information (be it in blogs or in news media) is bound to get stuff wrong.

As far as the stadium goes, I drive, bike, or walk past it on High Street practically every day. I’m not crazy about additional light pollution in the city, and I’m not looking forward to being stuck in traffic because of construction or during game nights, but if the Turks and city residents can benefit from better seating, and a new and improved stadium(s), I’m for it.

Comment from andy
Time: November 14, 2007, 3:42 pm

Yeah, that’s the post Brent. I didn’t look to see that you had posted the reason why I was tweaking Dave with the “too long to respond” schtick.

Gosh, I love this blog.

Comment from David Miller
Time: November 14, 2007, 3:45 pm

I’m I wrong here dude?

Comment from andy
Time: November 14, 2007, 3:46 pm

Last I checked, the AG remains the university’s counsel of record, Dave.

And blogs are considered legitimate public affairs and public relations forums now buy all practitioners. Oh, but I guess as an expert in PR Dave, you knew that.

And which *specific* information have I provided that is misleading?

Comment from David Miller
Time: November 14, 2007, 3:46 pm

I love the daylights outta HBurg

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: November 14, 2007, 3:57 pm

They were not your “counsel of record” during the lawsuit field against JMU. JMU was fired during the pendency of that lawsuit, yes or no?

The “firing” caused JMU to expend $10,000 solely because JMU was not in compliance with the law, yes or no?

Comment from David Miller
Time: November 14, 2007, 4:10 pm

Am I wrong here dude?
No Walter……………….

Comment from zen
Time: November 14, 2007, 4:59 pm

Beauty David Miller.

Comment from andy
Time: November 14, 2007, 7:25 pm

Dave’s right, the AG did not represent us in that lawsuit.

But to write that, “JMU couldn’t could follow state law with respect to their firearms policy, which is why the A.G.’s Office fire JMU as a client.” comes across as a final separation, which it was not — only over the firearms lawsuit.

Funny how the “entire” truth can sometimes seem purposefully obscured — even thought I am guessing that was not Dave’s intent. Maybe something to that.

David Miller, did I not answer you on something?

Comment from andy
Time: November 14, 2007, 8:06 pm

Oh, and yes Dave, the university did spend $10,000 to defend itself in that case. Sorry not to answer that question directly.

The $10k came from non-taxpayer funds, BTW.

Comment from Barnabas
Time: November 15, 2007, 8:59 am

I’m making an assumption here about peoples concerns about additional light polution.
I read alot about the lighting industry and lighting has advanced significantly in the past couple of years. While there may be more lights those lights if can be more accuratly focused on the subject area. That is if JMU pays for a top dollar lighting system.
LED lights are a more focused and energy eficient kind of light. The majority of the trucking industry has already switched to these lights. Thats why now when a rig is pulling up behind you instead of having two moon sized spotlights shining on you it looks more like the lights off a toy.
Now if JMU spends an astrinomical amount on new lights in an effort to eliminate the amount of light polution remember that they did it for you their neighbor and that because they did pay for better lights they are saving energy.

Comment from David Miller
Time: November 15, 2007, 11:43 am

Andy, I was not commenting on you. Sorry if it came off that way.

Comment from Lowell Fulk
Time: November 15, 2007, 3:02 pm

Barnabas is going in the right direction. Musco Lighting is a company we dealt with for lighting football and baseball fields.

http://www.musco.com/musco.php

Comment from Tim
Time: November 21, 2007, 3:26 am

Dave Briggman, off the radar…as always.

Why is this an intense debate? We are a gas station on the side of the road without JMU. Everybody who doesn’t make a buck off JMU raise your hand (then own up to your own falsehood).

Comment from David Miller
Time: November 21, 2007, 11:45 am

Tim, I see where you’re going but……. Without JMu we are the breadbasket of the south (or were).

Comment from Gxeremio
Time: November 21, 2007, 2:10 pm

Umm…I LOSE quite a few bucks to JMU as a student there. Need I remind you that Harrisonburg has 4 interstate exits and is the center of commerce for several surrounding counties? Unlike Blacksburg, we do not become a ghost town during school breaks or summers. Our non-student population is larger than our student population. This is not to say that JMU has no effect on our city, but it is not the only engine of economic stability here. Nor should JMU’s interests be the bottom line in city decision-making.

Pingback from hburgnews » JMU land sale almost complete
Time: November 28, 2007, 9:41 am

[...] was quite a bit of discussion about JMU’s plans for Veteran’s Memorial Stadium, but not as much about the 32 acres by [...]

Pingback from hburgnews » So long, 2007
Time: December 20, 2007, 6:43 pm

[...] complexes, while cutting certain sports programs to comply with Title IX. JMU announced the planned demolition and reconstruction of Veteran’s Memorial Stadium and the construction of recreational sports fields near Port and Neff. Work began on the tunnel [...]