IBJNews

Group backs out of deal for Anderson's Wigwam

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Officials say a private group has backed out of a deal to take over Anderson's closed Wigwam gymnasium, leaving its fate uncertain.

Anderson economic development director Greg Winkler told The Herald Bulletin that the attorney for Wigwam Sports & Entertainment informed city officials on Tuesday about the decision.

That action came on the same day that the Anderson School Board was expected to transfer ownership of the 9,000-seat gym to the city redevelopment commission.

The school board voted to give city officials until Sept. 2 to take over the Wigwam. That's a day before demolition bids on the building are set to expire.

Mayor Kevin Smith said he still hopes to save the Wigwam, which the school district closed in 2011 as a cost-cutting move.

School district officials have said it will cost an estimated $700,000 to demolish the Wigwam complex and mitigate asbestos in the building, which also includes classrooms and offices.

The Wigwam was built in 1962, and the only larger high school gym in the country is the Fieldhouse in New Castle.

Organizers had planned to operate the gymnasium as a venue for various events and have had discussions with a foundation and a not-for-profit organization about the potential use of the classroom space.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Let logic prevail
    For years Anderson has spent tax dollars maintaining an antiquated building based on emotions. This money could have benefited the city and tax payers in other much needed areas. It is time to forget the emotion. The Wigwam has no functional need. Let logic prevail ---TEAR IT DOWN!!!!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT