Could there be a worse time to ask Lincoln voters for money for a new arena? Probably not. The national economy sucks, and our local economy, while resilient, is feeling the pain also. The ongoing Antelope Valley Project is hugely expensive, voters just turned down a funding plan for a new jail, the city budget has been squeezed and twisted like a worn-out dishrag, and local assets are now migrating not just to Omaha as usual, but to Grand Island. Grand Island? Ouch!

But not so fast. As for parents of teenagers, “no” is often the default response of taxpayers/voters to things that cost money, especially when the economic climate is less than balmy. Fair enough, but the arena discussion should not end there. In fact, the discussion should begin there, by understanding that the taxpayer will oppose this expenditure unless he or she is convinced that it is necessary, timely and has real value.

In the coming months, a lot of people wiser and more knowledgeable than I will weigh in on both sides of this issue, but what the heck, the editor gave me the space to write about anything I want, the topic is timely, and I get to mention hockey one more time as I did in my two previous columns, despite the fact that, to me, icing is something you put on a cake and a hat trick involves a rabbit. Anyway, here goes.

Could there be a worse time for local voters to vote down a major project such as the new arena? Maybe not. The need is irrefutable. I don’t think anyone will get much traction arguing that Pershing Center is good enough for a city our size. Its not. It’s old, inaccessible and in the wrong place, taking up valuable space that could be better utilized for other purposes.

But must we build it now? Why not wait a few years until the economy is better? A valid point, but economies do not always heal on their own, or at least not as quickly or as smoothly as they might with the proper stimulus. And I believe that infrastructure investment and the resulting job creation are among the best stimuli you can give to an ailing economy.

Furthermore, I suspect that many of the commitments from donors, investors, developers and others that are currently under cultivation will be difficult or impossible to retain if not harvested now. The opportunity to incorporate (WARNING: HOCKEY REFERENCE AHEAD!) the Breslow youth hockey complex into the project design and layout may be lost as well. (A special note of thanks here to John Breslow for his tremendous generosity in donating millions of dollars for the complex.)

Also, the Antelope Valley Project is moving toward completion, and it appears that planning for the university research park is getting off to a good start. I am not among the movers and shakers who initiated those projects, nor do I have any expertise as a developer or an urban planner, but it seems to me that the arena project represents an important third and final leg of downtown redevelopment, both geographically and synergistically speaking.

OK, but what about value? Is it worth it? As a former government employee for more than 15 years and a retail merchant for more than 20 years, I have learned this: Taxpayers and retail customers are both consumers. In the taxpayers’ case, they are consumers of government services. And as such, they and their private-sector brethren are very much alike and far more complex, perceptive and sophisticated than many government and business leaders give them credit for. To taxpayers and customers both, every tax payment and every purchase is an investment. Price is important, but in the end they want value for their money. If every automobile consumer shopped on price alone, we’d all be driving Daewoos, and if every voter was anti-tax and anti-spending, Lincoln’s streets would still be dirt.

In a general sense, we already know the cost of this project: high. And, frankly, it is not entirely unfair for the arena opponents to emphasize, underscore and even exaggerate these costs, just as the proponents are sure to do with the alleged benefits. Note also that costs are tangible and quantifiable, whereas benefits are kinda fuzzy. Advantage opponents.

In the coming months, there will be all kinds of cost/benefit studies and analyses rolled out to persuade you to take one opinion or another. Ignore them. Like political polling, every one of them will reach a conclusion that reflects the viewpoint of whoever funded it. Dig deeper. Look at the alleged benefits. Do they ring true? Are they benefits you would appreciate and enjoy? Are they consistent with what you want your city to look like? Is the funding package realistic?

And in the end, ask yourself this: Will Lincoln be a better or worse place to live in five years if we do not do this?

Dave Fischer is owner of Frontier Harley-Davidson in Lincoln.