phoenix crash

BobOrme · 02-26-2010, 09:38 PM

I would suggest that the track being on leased land shouldn't be an excuse for not updating the facility. The land that is home to Heartland Park Topeka is owned by the city of Topeka and leased to the track owner. That fact hasn't been cause for stagnation on improvements or allowing the facility to deteriorate.

I've read statements here and elsewhere claiming the tribe that owns the land under Firebird wants the track gone. If that is true, all they'd have to do is not renew the lease at its renewal date. If the lease renewal date is only one or two years away, and the track owner knows for certain that the lease will not be renewed by the land owner, that would explain a reluctance to invest very much money in the facility by the track owner. However, I suspect the lease is long term, and rumors are being used as excuses.

02-26-2010, 09:38 PM	#17
BobOrme Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 25 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: phoenix crash I would suggest that the track being on leased land shouldn't be an excuse for not updating the facility. The land that is home to Heartland Park Topeka is owned by the city of Topeka and leased to the track owner. That fact hasn't been cause for stagnation on improvements or allowing the facility to deteriorate. I've read statements here and elsewhere claiming the tribe that owns the land under Firebird wants the track gone. If that is true, all they'd have to do is not renew the lease at its renewal date. If the lease renewal date is only one or two years away, and the track owner knows for certain that the lease will not be renewed by the land owner, that would explain a reluctance to invest very much money in the facility by the track owner. However, I suspect the lease is long term, and rumors are being used as excuses.