If anyone can get an Events Center built, its Dale.
I could go on a long explanation, but I suggest you watch the video instead. Greg pretty much sums up public sentiment – if we are going to build this thing, let’s do it right so it passes a public vote and he even goes so far to suggest it gets built downtown. Woo-Hoo! This did not look easy for Greg to do, and it certainly did not look like Mike’s best day either (at least his hair looked good). So I want to commend both of them for airing their grievances in a public forum.
That entire proposal that Cotter did was pretty much the same thing the last task-force did. I don’t understand why we need to do that same thing over and over, for a site that doesn’t work.
I agree, it should be downtown, but don’t think we need a public vote. Nothing would ever get built in this town if we put everything to a public vote.
Huether is showing a disturbing propensity for getting the Events Center built simply for the sake of getting it built. Which to me sounds like it’s nothing more to him than a resume enhancer. He’s also in cramdown mode and the public is rather wary of that tactic these days.
If we’re going to invest $100 million or more in a project like this, we damn well better put the plan with the best payback on the table, and this one ain’t it. People are suckers for the truth and even the Mayor admits privately that a downtown Events Center would be a better investment, he just doesn’t think the voter are smart enough to draw that same conclusion.
Maybe he should spend most of that $500K on a another round of autographed books mailed out to each voter.
Take a page from the “event center” model that is public financing of stadiums. The socialization of costs for the wealthy never pays back the tax payers when it comes to stadiums and event centers.
Long after the “event center” is gone, bulldozed into a parking lot, tax payers still owe $13 each: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports/08stadium.html?hp
Argus Story
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20100908/NEWS/9080311/
You all are missing the point, we had to turn away exhibitors for the boat and tractor shows! This seems to sum it up well what governments position should be, and shows that the private industry will pay for what it needs-
“Paying for arenas and stadiums that are now gone or empty is a result of a trend that stretches back decades. Until the 1960s, public works were often defined as bridges, roads, sewers and so on: basic infrastructure that was used by all and was unlikely to be built by the private sector. With few exceptions, like County Stadium in Milwaukee, teams constructed their own stadiums. ”
It’s the dang politicians trying to get elected, at your expense.
JIM-
I would agree. Cabelas and Walmart are the biggest violators of public welfare. Forcing communities to build roads to their stores.
John2 beat me to the punch…. I just sent that very same article to L3wis because I thought it was very timely.
No matter how many times people try to convince us otherwise, the economics just don’t add up.
Take a page from the “event center†model that is public financing of stadiums. The socialization of costs for the wealthy never pays back the tax payers when it comes to stadiums and event centers.
We don’t have the “wealthy” professional sports team owners in SF who will threaten to take their team elsewhere if they don’t get what they want. That argument falls flat. This facility will be multi-use and no single tenant will be able to float the funds for it.For us, it makes sense that the city build it.
JIM-
I would agree. Cabelas and Walmart are the biggest violators of public welfare. Forcing communities to build roads to their stores.
Cabela’s is also a bully about property taxes. The reason they build in smaller towns (mostly) is because they’re desparate for jobs and new business. Cabela’s uses that as leverage to get sweet tax deals.
Dude is correct, not a vaild comparision to an NFL team bolting on a City. None of these places were built as multi-use, multi-tenant places.
Also, the debt figures don’t account for the indirect economic benefit the places where the stadiums were built enjoyed. The Cities collected sales tax revenues on all the collateral development around the stadiums and all the eating, drinking, sleeping, parking & shopping that took place around them. How about all the tolls collected on the roads leading to these places or the gas purchased to go back home?
Or how about we look at more relevant models that are still enjoying a useful lifepsan, like Sioux City, Fargo, Omaha, Lincoln, Cedar Rapids, Rochester, Fort Wayne, Wichita, Kennewick etc.