If a referendum were placed on the ballot about the proposed Alameda Park Sports & Exhibition Complex, the project likely would be killed. If not, approval would be by a very close margin.

The main reason for that pessimistic prediction is that county government would have to provide the money for any financial losses that the complex incurred. At least in its initial three to five years — until the operation became fully established in terms of users and program opportunities — loss of money, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars, would be more likely than not.

But those realities regarding the proposed facility should not necessarily dictate that the project be discarded. The prospect of initial financial losses should not, in itself, determine the fate of the complex, as opponents are so quick to declare.

Supporters and opponents of the facility alike should weigh the overall good that the complex would represent, rather than just the short-term financial implications.

A budget the size of Butler County's is capable of absorbing reasonable, temporary losses. The key is to minimize the potential for loss by making smart decisions regarding what the complex will offer and how it will be promoted and marketed.

County residents who oppose the complex shouldn't base their thinking solely on pessimism offered by ice rink owners and operators from around the county and region.

While those interests' viewpoints are valuable, it must be acknowledged that the Alameda facility would likely pull some business from those other facilities. Therefore, it is not in those other rinks' interests to say anything that would encourage competition in the form of a Butler rink.

Those who contend that interest in hockey is waning in Butler County might be correct — now — because of the lack of an ice facility in the center of the county. That might change markedly with a facility at Alameda.

Then there's the issue of $4 million in state money that would have to be matched by $4 million in local funds — about $3 million of which already is in hand, according to Perry O'Malley, executive director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Butler County.

Those who believe the state's coffers would benefit by Butler County not seeking that money are mistaken. Pools of money that are set aside by the state legislature for various types of projects aren't returned to the state treasury. That doesn't happen because there are plenty of applicants for the available money.

If Butler County doesn't apply, it loses — but the state doesn't gain, because some other county will get the money. The same is true on the federal level.

Butler County is entitled to a fair amount of help from the state and federal governments, just like any other area of the state or nation. Butler County taxpayers are providing the money — via the taxes they pay — to qualify the county for grants.

The bigger issue is whether the county's lawmakers on both the state and federal levels have been working hard enough to bring money home. How the sports complex shakes out from the state's perspective will be a good indicator.

But U.S. Rep. Phil English also should be exploring a possible federal contribution to the project because of the signficant area within his legislative district that the project could benefit.

English has not been impressive in terms of the amount of "bacon" he has brought home to Butler County over the past dozen years, despite the strong support he receives from this county's voters.

If the county opts for a year-round ice rink or rinks as part of the sports complex, the rink(s) should be equipped with a removable hard floor to accommodate non-ice activities.

Flexibility should be the facility's key ingredient.

County Commissioner Scott Lowe is right when he says that the complex would be an asset for the county's youth. It also would provide options for adults striving to remain active and physically fit.

In addition, Lowe is right when he says that the complex' fate should be in the hands of the commissioners, not a referendum. The commissioners were elected to make tough decisions as well as easy ones.

Although the project is politically risky, considering the amount of opposition that the complex already has generated, the commissioners should welcome the opportunity to make the decision based on a thorough understanding of the facts and study findings, rather than on merely the possible money-loss factor.

While ice rink opponents argue that it would benefit only a tiny minority of the county's population — hockey players and their families — that is not necessarily true. Built-in flexibility could make the facility attractive for many people.

It would be a questionable decision if county leaders bowed to the vocal opposition of the sports complex without fully exploring the viability of the project.

If this county can dole out $40 million for the new county prison for the benefit of people who have broken the law, it can spend some of its own money for the benefit of the law-abiding and recreation-minded.

If the commissioners opt for the complex, they should do so with the attitude that the facility will be an asset rather than a liability — and then do all they can to make it so. After all, there was a time when even the Clearview Mall, when proposed, was deemed a bad idea by a vocal minority.

It too would never have been built, if county voters at that time had had the final say.