- Plans in the works to save Esquire Theater on Broadway in Cape (2/21/18)2
- Man transitioning to woman killed herself in Cape City Jail in June; news comes from architect's pitch in Kansas (2/15/18)2
- Bell City arrest, Scott City incident highlight high-alert status following Fla. school shooting (2/20/18)4
- Cape Girardeau businessman proposes redevelopment project; seeks taxing district to fund improvements (2/17/18)16
- Pence gets it right in response to attack on Christian faith (2/17/18)12
- As February winds down, Chaffee looking forward to reopening of ice cream shop (2/21/18)1
- Scott City puts school on lockdown; officials say alleged threat 'not credible' (2/21/18)2
- The heart of the matter: Clinic helps patients rise above congestive heart failure (2/17/18)
- Local foodies share most romantic places (2/22/18)
- Missouri governor indicted on invasion of privacy charge (2/23/18)6
Bonds for Mizzou Arena not the same
To the editor:
I read the article comparing the Mizzou Arena bonds to those for Southeast Missouri State University's River Campus. The statement "The University of Missouri project mirrors Southeast's River Campus funding mechanism" [attributed to Mike Lause, counsel for the Missouri Health and Educational Facilities Authority] is completely false.
The Mizzou Arena bonds are the state's portion of the project. It is not the total cost of the Mizzou Arena. A specific resolution for the Mizzou Arena was passed in the legislature that the state would provide a portion of the project costs as a match for the Laurie gift. The state issued bonds to cover our portion with the first payment occurring this year. The Mizzou Arena was started only after a guarantee of state funding. The River Campus has never received any such guarantee, yet the project was bonded by Southeast without this guarantee. There is no comparison between how the two projects were funded with state support. Any assertion to the contrary is not accurate.
State Rep. CARL BEARDEN, 16th District, St. Charles, Mo.