There is no doubt in my mind that the best place to build an Events Center is Downtown, but like I have said in the past, that is me just being selfish, because that is where I would like to see it. As many people have pointed out, we could almost build it anywhere in Sioux Falls (as long as it is within the city limits) and it would do well. I do however think the Arena location is a BAD location. As Quadir Aware pointed out last night at the city council meeting the Phillips Avenue Diner has had more of an economic impact then the Arena has had at it’s current location (okay, he was being sarcastic, but it was funny).
There needs to be some serious discussion about location before we break ground. And I hope the Build it Downtown group, or any ANTI- Arena group works hard at preventing it being built at the Arena location.
FUNDING
This is the most important facet of the project. A funding source or sources have to be presented to the public before we vote on it. And I say sources, because I think the public deserves options.
Why are we only depending on the mayor’s office and his finance director to come up with ONE funding source? We have hired all kinds of experts to tell us about a location and naming rights but why wouldn’t we hire an expert to advise us on the most important facet of the project? As I told a city councilor yesterday, “Citizens need to have funding options when they go to the ballot box, we don’t have that now.”
Here is what I see, but like I said above, we need to have an expert advise us on other options;
1) The Mayor’s proposal; Bonding, cash reserves, private donations (While I don’t think his idea is entirely that bad, I’m afraid that the private donations will fall thru and the taxpayer’s will be caught holding the bag.)
2) A five-year sales tax increase (This is something other cities have done, and it has worked FOR THEM. You also have to keep in mind these cities have had a resident at their facilities and the tax increase ended after the five-year period. I have a feeling that the tax increase WOULD NOT end after the five-year period. There is nothing stopping future city councils from continuing the tax increase AFTER the bonds are paid off. Tax increases NEVER go away. Don’t fool yourself.)
3) State Funding (This is something that I think is a very good option. Why can’t the state loan us a good chunk of the money? Or for that matter GIVE US THE MONEY? There are two factors here. First off, Pat Costello, former SF city council chair sits on the Governor’s staff as economic development director, why isn’t he involved? Secondly, remember, the first four pennies collected in taxes in SF goes directly to Pierre. Not only would a new Events Center have economic impact on the city, it would have a HUGE impact on the state. They need to be involved.
4) Federal Grants and Loans (Not much to say here, except that it is worth looking into.
5) Public investment bonds (This is something Staggers brought up during the mayoral campaign. While this could be complicated, it could raise a good chunk of dough).
6) Corporate entertainment and advertising tax (this is something we need to tap into)
TRANSPARENCY and ACTUAL COSTS
This is where I think the Mayor has really dropped the ball. Big time. While people debate location, funding and ballot language, as a big anti-censorship and First Amendment supporter, I have been extremely disheartened by the process. Not just with the current EC study, but with past ones also.
Not releasing reports and studies before they are presented to the public is not wise, it seems the mayor’s office is hiding something. But the biggest problem I have is with the actual costs presented. Let’s remember, the Pavilion has costed taxpayer’s almost $50 million dollars so far – this is a 1,900 seat facility that was supposed to cost us $21 million, at the most. I would hope that we have learned something from that process, but maybe we have not? The mayor is low-balling this project so he can sell it to the public. It is dishonest and sketchy. But you have to remember where Mr. Huether came from, he was in charge of marketing one of the most predatory credit cards in the nation. Do you think he is going to be honest with the public about the actual costs? Nope. But the citizens and the council can force him to be. Citizens can file complaints with the open meetings commission. You can also file complaints with the ACLU and the NCAC (National Coalition Against Censorship). We can talk all we want about the other factors of the Events Center, but lying to citizens about the actual costs is COMPLETE FUCKING BULLSHIT! I told a councilor yesterday, the $100 million dollar cost is LUDICROUS at best.
The public needs to take action, and they need to keep pressuring the Mayor’s office. As one of Huether’s directors, Darrin Smith, pointed out yesterday at the city council meeting, “He reads the blogs.”
Good.
I suggest citizens get more involved. Start a Facebook group, start a blog. These are things you can do for FREE. No matter your position on a new events center it’s important to remember, transparency in the process will be the most important factor. And if the mayor’s office uses dishonesty to sell this project, it will fail, and it will fail huge.
IMO
Where do I stand on the project? I will be voting against a new events center. I don’t think we need it. Like I have said in the past, what makes SF great is public safety and our FREE parks system. A new events center won’t make much of a difference. BUT, if a majority of voters approve it, I will be behind the project 100%.
TRANSPARENCY and ACTUAL COSTS
This is where I think the Mayor has really dropped the ball. Big time.
~l3wis
I hear ya l3wis. That’s it, in a nutshell. Same for the BID people. I was not around when the news story broke that BID had hired Walker Parking Consultants. Was just reading about it on the Argus this morning. Seems curious to me this same consulting firm from 4 years ago now has a different set of dynamics by which they draw a conclusion. The 4 year old report says we will need parking ramps, not just one, but several to accomadate a EC. Now, out of the blue, all we need is flat parking space in the switching yard?
Ain’t buyin it. Mike Cooper is right about one thing. From that article
“The city received nearly $40 million to remove the switching yard in 2005. At the time, the plan was to develop the area with office and retail space, not to build a parking lot, Cooper said.”
Ain’t no way the city opts for flat parking space when they can sell that same plot of land to developers for a kings ransom.
Did anyone read the last comment in the Argus story from the guy who wonders just how in the hell he is going to continue to feed his family meat. Meat for Christs sake. Do you EC backers think for one minute dynamics like this will not come into play at the polls? And honest mike and BID are arguing about WHERE to put our white elephant?
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110429/NEWS/104290306/Group-says-downtown-has-parking-center
Sy. Speaking of transparency, any way I can get a .pdf of your latest Walker Study? I’d love to compare what they say now versus what they said just 4 years ago.
when they’re raising water rates to fix the sewers and the roads are more pot holes than road, we have no business building the ec.
So what you are saying is that you are against it, unless everyone else jumps on board, then you will completely flip flop your position and support it? WTF? Are you running for a political office somewhere?
Poly, I believe it’s going to be posted on the BID site, but I’ll check on that.
Also, the City sells the track land, we get a one time cash infusuion. We develop parking, we create a long term revenue stream and a critical component for ANY future private development. Cooper is sounding very short sighted on these types of options much like his boss is.
Also from the AL story comments:
When you look at our AECOM report and it’s tables showing the Economic Impact, you’ll see at the bottom they are using info from 3 sources: SMG, Global Spectrum, and AECOM.
When you look at a similar report that Phoenix commissioned last year studying the Economic Impact of their Convention Center, they source the following: Hunt (General Contractor), City of Phoenix Engineering & Architectural Services, Phoenix Convention Center, IMPLAN, and AECOM.
What’s IMPLAN? A software program that AECOM routinely uses which incorporates state level data from 528 industrial sectors and examines the way they interact with each other. This allows them to “quantify the effects of adding jobs or final demand in any industry”.
SOOOOOO, why would we base our assumption on going from virtually zero flat floor conventions and trade shows to 34 a year without talking to our own CVB or using a software program to estimate the final demand they way they do in other places? Seems kinda convenient they only went off SMG & Globals estimates, especially since those two firms are vying for the new contract to run the whole enchilada.
In other words, we are going off a sales pitch. A sales pitch that was made without talking to the people responsible for selling these type of events. You can be all bent at Build it Downtown for asking these kinds of questions, but understand that they aren’t being answered for a reason.
Also, AECOM’s integrity isn’t being questioned, that’s a red herring the Mayor is tossing out. They have been paid to do exactly what they did: Make a case we’ve never been able to make before for the Arena site. And their RFP did not inlcude a final recommendation, just supply the info the Mayor can use and ignore the rest, including questions about how they came up with the info.
BTW, your Council just approved an additional $65 grand last night so you can hear another sales pitch about how to sell the naming rights and get the amount the Mayor claims we will get from the private sector.
Never mind that most people do this when they know they actually have a project to sell.
Fun Fact: Staggers was at the Council meeting last night sitting next to Cheryl Rath.
I agree with l3wis final paragraph. It will be like other city projects, not viable but we’ll do it anyway. If it must happen, we need a new mayor and democracy. This is a 300 million project and Huether walks away with an embezzled 10 million. It’s foolish going in without spending checks/balances and a competitive bid process afforded through democracy and not available with Home Rule Charter.
why would i want to bring my convention to sioux falls with our 9 months of winter, when i can go somewhere warm?
You got it Scott. Las Vegas gives space and lodging away. They’re building a new 3 part events center complex. You can fly there cheap on Allegiant and soon (thanks to Huether) Frontier.
What happens to the arena if a new EC is built at either location? Aren’t the Skyforce, Stampede and Storm happy with the arena’s current capacity and profitability?
“Tax increases NEVER go away.” Unless you are talking about Federal income taxes and you are super wealthy, but that’s another issue.
Mayor Huether is a borderline sociopath. Here’s a quote from the AL (yesterday):
“I looked at all of these things as best I could keeping all of Sioux Falls in mind, and I looked at both sites in a way you can’t imagine†Huether said.
And by the way, the State will NEVER get involved with funding something here. Too many people across the state resent Sioux Falls for being a “Big City”, or too liberal, or having (or trying to have) the tiniest semblance of Culture. That, and we have TWO Walmarts, which is an indication of our arrogance and pride.
@ Charlie. The 2005 Task force got it right. We can make the whole facility a Convention Center by taking down the wall and adding the modular seating. With that you add 25,000 square feet of space and with the Mayor’s plan you add 35,000. One costs $5 million and the other will run well over $100 million.
The semi-pro teams would move to a new facility if you could structure the deal to amke sense for them to. Maybe something like we charge the same rent for the initial term and the City gets any additional revenue over what they are doing today from skyboxes or additional ticket sales to help pay off the operations.
However, like many others, they aren’t being included in this process. They are simply expected to go along.
AG – I’m just saying that I am personally against the Events Center. In other words I’m not going to join some group to stop it from being passed. If the majority of the public wants it, and wants to pay for it, let it be.
You and I are usually right on with our thoughts. I am going to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
I think that Sioux Falls desperately needs a new Event Center to be a relevant player on the Midwest scene. Leaving off KC, The Twin Cities and Omaha the following; Fargo, Lincoln, Mankato, Rapid City, Sioux City and Brookings all have event centers that are attracting bigger and better entertainment
Sioux Falls as the most prominent and viable city in the State should IMO bear the burden of being the entertainment capitol as well.
I also personally think that having it downtown would be a wonderful beautiful thing…but is not physically possible. Downtown needed to happen what 10 years ago when the convention center was built on to the archaic Arena.
By all accounts I have read our Sports teams (huge draws) are happy with the Arena and the hosting of the Summit League tourney 2 years running shows that facility can handle the sports side. Sioux Falls does need a facility, bigger than the Washington Pavilion, that is made specifically for musical events.
With parking garages with catwalks connecting to the new facility put on the current Howard Wood site, I think what an amazing compound with Sioux Falls Stadium, the Arena, a nice hotel, the convention center and an Event Center.
I realize that there is not a lot of business available in the area, but who is to say there can’t be development? Downtown is not that far away. If people want to shop there they will regardless of where the convention center is located.
When I would come into Sioux Falls for a concert I gassed up in SF, ate in SF, bought some vinyl in SF and none of that was near the Arena. Sioux Falls still got my money. Period.
Have you seen where the Fargo Dome is? Have you seen where Tyson is? These aren’t exactly retail developed areas…but they are transportation friendly and as an outsider driving in THAT is the single most important issue to me.
Sioux Falls has already lost my shopping dollars unless I am in SF seeing friends because of transportation issues. My family drives to Sioux City that is just a joy to drive around in.
For what it’s worth…that’s my two cents.
Shane Gerlach
Here’s an idea: maybe we should look more than 3 years into the future and build this place to be accessible to people who DON’T drive. As gas prices should be telling us, the days of driving to get anywhere and everywhere may be drawing short.
Walker Study is posted now:
http://builditdowntown.com/
Yankton:
“I realize that there is not a lot of business available in the area, but who is to say there can’t be development?”
Pretty much every developer in town has said this, and a couple of them have investments at the Arena area so they are speaking not in theory, but from personal experience.
It’s also worth noting that John Q Hammons, a large hotel developer who’s based in Missouri, wasn’t going to build the Sheraton at first even with the announcement of the Convention Center expansion in ’95. We had to offer about $2 million in incentives before he took a second look and agreed to do it.
i think the only draw for sports this will have, is so the rich can sit in their taxpayor subsidized luxury boxes. go to a pheasants game this year and see how many of those are empty. the skyforce couldn’t draw a picture on a piece of paper, much less a crowd. they have said they may play at kelby’s new gymnasium. it isn’t much better for the stampede. that only leaves the storm. does anyone really think this needs to be built so there can be a 3-day summit league tournament every year? and what big touring acts are going to fill this place once a month? what they also forget to say is that the new e.c. will need to undercut or over pay in order to keep fargo and sioux city from getting these acts.
Sy, you mentioned JQ Hammons. At first they wanted to build an atrium hotel downtown. They were zoned out because they’re to honest for bribes. They came back when the city realized they needed a hotel at the arena. Still, they were so turned off the first time, the city had to offer incentive. Realize that city administration is people who couldn’t make it in business but discovered a corrupt way to get rich from taxpayers.
Pathloss: All the more reason for SF to adopt a form-based building code, instead of the antiquated use-based zoning code we use today. We should dictate the physical form of our City, not micromanage the details of what people are doing in their property.
Taking off on Tom H.’s theme – next step after gas hits $7/gas would to build a low-speed light rail/subway combo (gotta tunnel under Cathedral Heights 🙂 ) with stops at DT East Bank, DT West Bank, Cathedral District, Arena Conv. Center and Airport to make ’em all work. Yeah. Right.
@ Tom again. Overlay districts are an easier “fix” to completely overauling the entire zoning system if what you’re after is “facade control”.
I agree, overlay distrcits are fine if all you want to do is fix a small geographical region (like DT, for instance). If what you want to do is institute a substantive paradigm shift throughout the city (including greenfield development), a fully form-based code is required.
Use-based codes encourage use separation, which more or less requires automobile usage to do anything. Even if you solve this in some small region (DT is the only mixed-use, walkable neighborhood we have in SF), the fact that it is a localized effect doesn’t really fix any of the problems associated with auto-dependent sprawl (i.e. massive street capital and maintenance costs, wastewater costs, etc.).
For anybody interested in the topic:
http://www.strongtowns.org/
http://www.smartcodecentral.org/
http://www.cnu.org/
This I will say about Walker Parking Consultants. They give favorable results to whomever shows them the money. In this case the “show me the money” group for Walker is BID. I have a lot of questions Sy. Let’s start here. The Walker Parking Study group says an “event” in Sioux Falls that has an attendance of 10,000 will need parking for 3,333 vehicles. Yet in Lincoln Nebraska for a similar 10,000 seat “event”, 4,000 vehicles will need a place to park. WTF?!?! Lincoln has 7 times as many college student as SF, and their campus is relatively close to their McArena. Yet they will need 667 more parking spots than SF for an “event” with 10,000 seats sold? Ain’t buyin it Sy. And that’s just for starters.
Nothin personal Sy. As far as I’m concerned honest mike makes BID look like choir boys.
No event center downtown. No! None. I hope no taxpayer dollars are wasted on an event center at all, and if they are it needs to be by the arena. I know how to get there, and downtown is confusing and dangerous.
How much money when there is a concert with big names flies right out of Sioux Falls and South Dakota nearly immediately?
Consider how much money building this sucks out of the economy immediately. It is the equivalent of hundreds or thousands of people loosing their jobs or dieing.
There must be better ways to squander taxpayer’s money than on a bigger events or sports center.
Sioux Falls is not resented for what is there, but for what many see is unwarranted arrogance of the residents who assume that if you aren’t from Sioux Falls, you are a straw-sucking hick.
Sioux Falls should first look at building elevated walk, ride, run ways made for comfortably getting around the city by walking running, bicycling, or in very small very light vehicles that would be crushed in a minute if mixing with heavy traffic.
Mayors, school bureaucrats, et al always try to force taxpayers into a binary decision between one worthless option and one very nearly worthless option while there are perhaps a 1000 better options for spending or not spending taxpayers money.
That’s the thing that makes me chuckle about the whole debate. As a citizen pointed out during a Listening & Learning Session a few weeks back, (Paraphrasing) “Yes, we have been talking about an events center for 10 years (and it’s supposed economic impact) and guess what has happened over those past ten years? Sioux Falls has grown and prospered WITHOUT a new events center.” In other words, we don’t need it.