Arshot Responds to GVBC

Arshot Corporation responds to the recent Dispatch Letter to the Editor comments of David Cunningham, Chair of the German Village Business Community. Arshot has sent their response to city officials, the Dispatch, and CooperTalk so that you may better understand the actual facts of the project. The Dispatch also received a condensed version for publication. Here is the full version.

In response to David Cunningham’s letter to the Dispatch on behalf of the German Village Business Community (GVBC), regarding our proposed redevelopment of Cooper Stadium (“Don’t allow racetrack at Cooper site,” May 22, 2010), Arshot Investment Corporation is writing to address a number of statements made therein which we believe to be incorrect.

Misstatement #1:  The proposed redevelopment jeopardizes the future success of business in German Village in exchange for the rights of a single commercial developer.  At issue here are not the rights of a single developer, but the rights of all residents and businesses in the neighborhoods surrounding Cooper Stadium.  Over the past few months, supporters of the Cooper Park project have gone door-to-door in those neighborhoods and found that an overwhelming majority of the neighbors are in favor of the project.  As proof, the supporters have collected well over 2,000 petition signatures and distributed more than 1,000 yard signs.  Opposition at this point appears to be limited primarily to a small group of people, many with no ties to Franklinton or Southwest Columbus, who took their position prematurely based on the false assumptions set forth in ROAR’s initial noise study.  That study, conducted before the developer had even finalized its facility design, inappropriately compared the proposed half-mile oval to drag strips and NASCAR super speedways and failed to account for the effect of any sound walls.  After much criticism of the initial study, a second evaluation was subsequently performed by ROAR’s consultant based on real project specifications provided by the developer.  This subsequent evaluation actually confirms the developer’s conclusion that anticipated noise emissions can be effectively managed with sound walls so as to fully comply with city limits.  Nevertheless, a few people are finding it difficult to reverse their position and accept that conclusion.

Misstatement #2:  The City of Columbus should work with the German Village Business Community to find a better use for the facility.  It would seem presumptuous for the GVBC to state that they should be the ones to help determine what use may be best for Cooper Stadium.  As a practical matter, there is no other private redevelopment proposal on the horizon which could result in any significant job creation or economic growth.  Regardless, the site is located in the city’s Southwest Area, adjacent to the Franklinton Area.  Both of these areas have much greater need than German Village and much more to gain from redevelopment of the site.  They also have the most to lose if the stadium remains empty and in disrepair.  How then can the GVBC request that the prevailing opinions in these areas be ignored?  One must consider whether the Southwest Area or the Franklinton Area would ever presume to be granted such control over a proposed development within the borders of German Village.

Misstatement #3:  The developer’s proposed sound walls are experimental and inadequate.  Those who took the time to attend the developer’s presentation to the Southwest Area Commission on April 21st heard Chris Menge from Harris Miller Miller & Hanson explain that there is nothing experimental about the proposed sound walls.  This is not magic; it’s science.  The technology of sound absorbency and the accuracy of computer modeling have both been proven time and again.  In this case, the computer models show that no noise in excess of the city limit will even cross to the east side of I-71.  For the GVBC to suggest that such noise will not only cross I-71 but also travel over the Scioto River and the Whittier Peninsula and through the Brewery District is a stark contradiction of the model, without any basis in fact.  The opposition group has not provided any computer model of its own to dispute Mr. Menge’s findings.  To the contrary, in his presentation to the Southwest Area Commission on May 19th, ROAR’s own noise consultant admitted that the developer’s noise modeling is accurate based on assumed emissions.

Misstatement #4:  ROAR’s noise study was conducted by an independent acoustical consultant.  ROAR hired its consultant based upon his reputation as an anti-noise activist and his passion for opposing private development.  He cannot be considered impartial or independent in any way, given that he was explicitly directed by his client to help defeat the project.  In contrast, it must be remembered that Mr. Menge was selected by representatives of the county, city and area groups, after a nationwide search, as one of three consultants best qualified to perform computer modeling for the developer.  This selection was based on Mr. Menge’s demonstrated expertise in conducting balanced community noise surveys, several of which related to other motorsports facilities.  Moreover, Mr. Menge was not directed by the developer toward any specific conclusion.  Instead, he was simply asked to determine the amount of noise abatement measures which would be required to effectively manage anticipated noise levels, so that the developer could then assess whether the cost of such abatement measures is warranted.  The sound walls designed by Mr. Menge are estimated to cost in the range of $5 million.  ROAR’s consultant admits that he has never encountered a developer offering noise abatement measures of this magnitude.

Misstatement #5:  ROAR’s noise study concludes that the sound walls will not be as effective as the developer claims.  While it is unclear as to which noise study the GVBC is referring with this statement, the statement is incorrect regardless.  The initial ROAR noise study was based entirely on false assumptions, before the developer finalized it plans, as described above.  ROAR has been criticized for continually using this initial study to intentionally mislead people.  In his more recent evaluation, ROAR’s consultant abandoned his initial study and validated the developer’s computer model.  His position in opposition to the project is now based on the extreme view that the Columbus noise ordinance is not sufficiently protective and that the developer should be required to do something more than comply with the ordinance.  As explained below, however, the 65 dBA residential limit specified in the city’s ordinance is consistent both with the standards established by the EPA and with the existing noise levels in the immediate area.

Misstatement #6:  The developer is unable to determine which materials will be used to construct the sound walls.  The developer has stated repeatedly that the proposed sound walls are designed with a noise reduction coefficient (NRC) value of 0.75 or higher.  Mr. Menge has suggested several different products which are commercially available and will satisfy this specification.  Any of these products will be equally as effective as the others.

Misstatement #7:  The sound walls will “push” noise away from the immediate neighborhood and into German Village.  As described above, the sound walls are designed to absorb noise, rather than reflect it, and this effect has been verified by ROAR’s consultant.  At his presentation to the Southwest Area Commission, the consultant was unable to predict that noise from the facility will be disruptive in German Village.  He stated that, because of the walls, such noise may not even be audible there (“Expert: Noise will be minimal in village,” German Village This Week, May 21, 2010).

Misstatement #8:  The Columbus noise ordinance is less protective than 90% of the noise ordinances of other cities “surveyed” by ROAR.  This statistic must be questioned.  What are the 140 cities included in the referenced sampling?  Are they comparable in size to Columbus, or are many of them smaller municipalities in rural areas?  In reality, the 65 dBA residential limit in the Columbus noise ordinance is entirely consistent with standards established by the EPA.  Indeed, according to ROAR’s own consultant, (i) the EPA recommends indoor noise levels no higher than 55 dBA to allow for uninterrupted conversations, and (ii) sound is attenuated by approximately 15 decibels for a house with open windows.  One can only conclude, therefore, that exterior noise of 65-70 dBA is perfectly reasonable in a residential area during daytime hours.  This is especially true in a dense urban area with heavy traffic, such as the area around Cooper Stadium.  Sources regularly cited by the ROAR consultant specify that average noise levels in such areas are 65-75 dBA.  These levels are consistent with measurements of the existing ambient noise around Cooper Stadium, much of which is generated by traffic on I-70 and I-71.  Lowering the decibel limit in the city’s ordinance would not quiet the freeways.  Further, the ordinance could not be amended without giving careful consideration to the great number of other businesses and events in Columbus which would be harmed by a stricter noise standard.

Misstatement #9:  An auto racing venue is incompatible with the city’s green initiatives and forward-thinking plans.  The proposed project is “green” in two important ways.  First, it preserves and makes reuse of a deteriorating structure that must otherwise be demolished and sent to a landfill.  Secondly, by including an automotive research and technology center in the earliest phase of development, one of the project’s primary functions is to accommodate the testing of new vehicle designs and alternative fuel systems.  Many consider this to be very forward-thinking.  As an aside, it is interesting to note that the project is criticized for being too experimental, on one hand, and not forward-thinking enough on the other hand.

We will continue to do our best to address any remaining questions or concerns that people may have about noise, but we look forward to a point in the approval process when the focus of the discussion shifts to the many ways in which this project will benefit the local community.  We want more people to realize that this is not just a racetrack and that its function is not limited to racing or other forms of entertainment.  By also providing educational opportunities, with the development of new automotive technologies and the vocational training of automotive service technicians, and commercial activity in the form of new car sales, corporate events, and convention and visitor business, Cooper Park is intended to lend itself to a wide variety of different purposes.  Each of these purposes is expected to create jobs and to spur further economic development in the neighborhoods around the stadium.  The residents and merchants in those neighborhoods understand this and support the project accordingly.  We believe that their wishes should be respected, especially in the absence of any credible prediction of adverse impact on German Village or another area of the city.