Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on February 13, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More discussion of whether to ban outside food at W.L. White Auditorium.

Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on February 13, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@momoftwo

I will admit that I may have spoken to soon, maybe "Emporia" would check peoples pockets for food, I doubt it but for the sake of the discussion, lets say the security does. It still does not change the fact that someone bringing in a bag of grapes or a candy bar is a security threat to anyone else. People do not want to pay the high prices at the concessions for the most part which is why they bring food in the First Place. I have no problems emptying my pockets, taking off my shoes or doing whatever else the security might see as a need to prevent any risk, but banning Food is just silly in my opinion. Do we need more security? sure we do. but just to see for myself, I walked through the entire auditorium, went in several offices in the past few days, never got stopped one time by anyone. So in my opinion, security issues that should also be addressed would be, before and after events and not be so worried about food people bring in at the time of the event. .

Posted by 77flint (anonymous) on February 13, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why did you remove my comment? Was okay for someone to ask if I took my meds? But its not okay to fight back. This paper is the BIGGEST JOKE EVER. You know that I was right and couldn't handle it. PALIASOS!!!

Posted by 77flint (anonymous) on February 14, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And one more things it was not a "random attack" it was defense.

Posted by momoftwo (anonymous) on February 14, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The primary reason arenas don't allow food to be brought in is to protect revenue for the vendors. I don't know for sure, but I imagine most arenas (esp larger ones) contract their concessions. They would have a hard time finding vendors or a businessman to sign a contract if they allowed outside food and drink to be brought in. I think WAW is a little different (but don't quote me) because they manage their own concessions. And, not sure about other arenas, but WAW also allows organizations to come in & run the concessions for money-makers. It will be a hard decision either way. I do agree that most food items don't pose a security threat. In fact, the drinks people bring in probably pose more of a threat than any food brought in! LOL!! I went to ESU in the 80's & we used to have a whole lot of fun & basketball & football games!!

Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on February 14, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@momoftwo, I could not agree with your more. when you said
"The primary reason arenas don't allow food to be brought in is to protect revenue for the vendors" Not for security reasons.
This has been my point, Drinks are a bit different, I could see a ban on those. But as I said in an eariler post, whats next? a ban during the fair, no coolers aloud at the demo derby? Just a thought.... I notice no one ever checks coolers when they are brought in to the grandstands, if security is in question at public events, who is to say a weapon won't be brought in at those times.

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on February 14, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Flint,

My apologies. I read over the initial attack. It's been removed.

Gwen Larson

Posted by momus (anonymous) on February 15, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The other thing we must consider is very unfortunate in this day and age... If something were to happen in this very public venue, and the eventual lawsuits started streaming in, a judge would inevitably ask "what security measures did you have in place". Our current answer would me "none". The liability incurred by the citizens of Emporia (that our tax dollars would be forced to cover) would be immense.

I've talked to some individuals associated with the White Auditorium over the past couple of days to satisfy my curiosity concerning some of the thoughts expressed on this board. From what I understand, alcohol is a major problem at our venue. There have also been incidents, and this is gross so I'm warning you, of people throwing bottled urine on an opposing team. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard something that unsanitary. There is also a definite economic aspect to this story. People bringing in a bunch of pizzas and passing out slices definitely hurts concessions sales. With a tax base that will almost certainly shrink substantially over the next year, our Auditorium is looking at a cut in funding. Any extra revenue will help them maintain an older building that still contains internal tech from the 40's & 50's.

Yes, attending a game will be more expensive. Money is tight for me right now; as I'm sure it is for many of you. But, Emporia's facility is the only one of its type that I've heard of after 9/11 that has this lax policy on food and security. There are reasons, both economic and security based, for policies in these other facilities. We may all have to realize that times have changed and we can't always have everything we want the way we want it.

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on February 15, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've stayed away from this discussion because of ambivalence - plus, I don't think I really know enough about the issues involved. However, it is one of those little things which have important implications for us all depending upon how the issue is eventually decided.

Momus' last posting provides a balanced and almost too informative argument in favor of controlling substances taken into the auditorium. If yuck is being brought in bottles and then sprayed or thrown on opposition players . . . I don't think there is any need to discuss rules banning "drinks". Given that, it seems logical and positive to extend the rules to cover foods of all types

I dislike turning the city auditorium into a market. One of the appeals of small town living is the ambiance of the picnic approach to community sporting events. However, if even a few attendees are behaving as described, the change is necessary.

Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on February 15, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, it is not the food or drink that is being brought in, it is the People Attending the event., These same people that spray or throw "Yuck" on opposition players will continue to do the same with the drink they buy from the concession stands. Why do people think banning food is going to make any difference. I can see banning drinks, it is to hard to tell what is in a bottle or cup, might be "yuck" or beer or whatever. But food?
I for one would not mind paying a few more tax dollars to offset hiring a few more security guards for events, maybe then they would have a better chance of catching the people who are causing problems. I dont think your going to stop the trouble makers just by banning food..

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Gwen,

In the paper the other night, your graph and poll results on this subject was errant. The majority of the votes were no. The graph said the majority were yes. In type, the gazette staff did accurately report that there were more No votes. How many people shook their head in agreement with the graph, choosing to follow the rest of the herd like alot of folks do?

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on February 27, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Neighbor,

Apparently, I can't read. You're right. The pie chart on Saturday's front page was accurate, but the labels were backward. The Yes and No should be switched. The accurate totals are:

Yes: 232 votes, 30%
No: 494 votes, 65%
Undecided: 26 votes, 3%

Those figures are from the results page on the Web site:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/polls/2008...

We'll rerun the graphic in print as soon as we can.

Gwen

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ok, thanks.