Here’s more evidence that the City of Winston-Salem rushed into the deal for its taxpayer-funded downtown baseball stadium. Only after ground has been broken have officials started thinking about what’s going to happen 20 years down the road, when the city is scheduled to assume ownership.

Mayor Allen Joines raised the possibility that —- get this —- the stadium could be torn down:

The downtown ballpark now under construction could be torn down in 20 years under proposed changes being discussed by the city of Winston-Salem and the developers.

….Joines said yesterday that he does not think the developers plan to do that, but he confirmed that it could be a drawback to allowing the developers – Sports Menagerie Corp. – to eventually buy the stadium back from the city.

…Under a framework agreement approved in August, the developers would own the stadium for 20 years and then transfer it to the city. There was no option allowing the developers to buy it back.

Joines said that the developers proposed the option of buying it back as a safeguard measure in case the overall ballpark project does not turn out as planned.

So Warthogs owners Billy Prim and Flip Filipkowski —I’ll give them credit —- actually offered up an option to buy the stadium from the city after 20 years, and the city’s balking at the idea. So they’ll get get to bear the expense of tearing it down when it becomes antiquated. Keep in mind, the shelf life of sports stadiums is about 30 years, and the fact that Joines even mentioned the possibility of knockdown means he’s aware of this, right?

Aside from that, you have wonder if anyone really knows what’s going on in this deal. Even funnier is two city council members trying to determine if a mere acre on the site is greenspace or parkland:

A committee made up of council members reviewed the final touches yesterday, recommending wide approval with little discussion of proposed changes concerning, for example, the stadium-ownership option as well as parking and incentive-payment issues. Though some of the proposed changes were housekeeping items, other changes, such as the ownership issue, could have larger consequences for the city……

Council Members Molly Leight and Wanda Merschel rejected one of the proposed changes dealing with the way parkland is to be set up.

Under the broad agreement, the developers would provide 0.6 acres of parkland. The proposed change would have required the developers to provide the same amount of parkland, but it would have allowed them to divide it into smaller parcels as opposed to one 0.6-acre lot.

Leight said that the proposal “makes no sense,” because the site plan for the overall development has not been drafted yet.

“There is a difference between green space and parkland,” Merschel said.

Geez.