As I have been saying all along, Events Center support is 50/50 and it teeters on the funding.
An Argus Leader-KELO-TV poll of 800 registered voters found that 50 percent support the idea of building a new facility to replace the Sioux Falls Arena for concerts, shows and sporting events. Support dropped to 47 percent when residents considered a plan to borrow $110 million to pay for the facility’s construction costs.
…and the fact still remains that it will not be $110 million – it will $190 million with interest. Funny how that doesn’t make the headlines.
This is going to be hotter then a pepper sprout. When you have a poll that tight you will see an all out battle. I have said all along, I am personally opposed to a new EC and will vote against it, but if a majority supports it, I won’t protest . . . but I am reconsidering.
One key point that should not be overlooked is the fact that this was a sampling of REGISTERED voters (as opposed to LIKELY voters). When we start talking about questions/public figures that will be on the ballot, the distinction is critical. As anyone who follows politics knows, registered voter polls can substantially overestimate support/opposition for a person/issue. The reason of course is that a lot of these registered voters aren’t going to bother showing up to the polls. The only question then is what groups of voters are not going to show up? Who is going to show up? And does their group slant in one direction heavily? For example, if the elderly are heavily against the event center, but most show up at the polls, whereas most young voters support the event center, but as usual many/most of them don’t show up the polls, this poll is overestimating how close the vote could be. Perhaps it could be defeated by a far wider margin. I talk to a lot of people in Sioux Falls, but I don’t have a good sense of whether the majority of any particular group/demographic is for/against the event center. I have a general sense that perhaps most of the silent majority may be against it. I could be dead wrong. My only point is we have to be careful in taking too much stock in registered voter polls on this. I’d like to see one or more polls of likely voters, although I don’t think I’m going to see it. In any event, I’m not surprised to see support drop when the financing is brought up. Even those who are rabidly for an event center must take some pause at a nothing down plan where the city pays close to double the advertised cost over 25 years, all the while limited because of the debt payments and taking quite a bit of risk.
As I have been predicting all along, this will be a death match until the end. It’s a tough one to call. I also hear from different sectors of people. I know just as many retired/elderly that support a new EC as are against it (for their grandkids and keeping young people in SF) I also know many young people who have chosen to stay in SF that are against it, because like myself, I don’t think we need it, and I think the city should concentrate on smaller shows/concerts and events and venues. When I go to Omaha or Minneapolis, I don’t go for the big shows at the Qwest, I go for the smaller ones at clubs. We have this mentality that bigger is better, and that is how they are going to sell this sack of shit to the voters. Whether you support a DT location or not really isn’t the sticking point here, the sticking point is the Arena location the right spot? I don’t think so. I have often said that Dawley Farm would be a perfect location. Room for parking and expansion and no traffic issues. But hey, I’m against it, so who cares about my idea. I think a special election is best because it will bring out the true believers and non-believers, a true matchup. I know in the past the older generation who votes more has helped kill projects like this, but don’t under estimate the electorate power of Mr. Huether. He is rolling on a 62% approval rating and he creamed Dr. Staggers in the mayoral election, not just because he spent a lot of money and campaigned his ass off, but he used good strategies (absentee voting, etc.) I don’t expect any thing less from him creeping up to the November vote. The proponents will throw so much money at this expect tp read and hear about nothing in our community except the EC for the next 3 months. I think besides the hardcore opponents and proponents you also have a group of people who have just ‘given up’ and will vote for the place because they are sick of hearing about it. Let’s face it, if the vote fails in November, it will be back on the ballot in November of 2012. Some are saying, let’s just approve this thing and get it over with. This will be a fun one to watch. Get your barf bags ready.
You do make great points l3wis. As someone who has attended or watched pretty much all event center forums, and a regular attendee of city council meetings, I would agree I’ve heard just as many older people who want an event center for their grand kids as I’ve heard younger people who want them. I still wonder what many average voters think. By that I mean those whose only information on the event center comes from the few stories they’ve seen on the news. I definitely agree the special election is the way to go. As we probably agree, I’m not interested in maximum voter turnout, I’m interested in maximum INFORMED voter turnout (that’s true for any election). The event center may largely be a referendum of Mayor Huether, since they are now hopelessly intertwined. And as you state, he has a high approval rating. I’ve talked to Mayor Huether multiple times, and on a personal level I really like him. I’ve really liked his making things more transparent. We agree probably on many things, some we don’t, but either way I do respect him. In theory, I like the idea of a fancy new event center to go watch the Stampede for example (the arena is a terrible hockey venue) or having better concerts. That being said I can’t ignore many other facts and concerns I have. The first is I don’t really believe it will pay for itself. Anyone who studies stadiums/event centers will find this almost never happens. The only question really is how much will its operating costs put a drain on the city budget going forward. Perhaps with sponsorships and such, it won’t be a lot. However, there is a risk it could be a lot. The second is the more you research how economic impact studies are done for these things, they almost always greatly overestimate the impact they will have. And no matter what, we’re predicting the future so its a educated guess at best. As we all know the major impact is based on the theoretical huge influx of large conventions, which I’m quite skeptical of. If this doesn’t happen, the whole edifice of its economic impact really collapses. To be fair, the AECOM study at least makes an effort to only count impacts from people who come into Sioux Falls to spend money who theoretically wouldn’t have spent money elsewhere in Sioux Falls. Many of these studies count all spending in a city from all people who attend the events, including those who live in the city. The citizens who live in a city shouldn’t be factored in these studies, because its assumed this is not new impact, its simply transfer spending. If I didn’t drop $50 at the event center and $20 at Buffalo Wild Wings, I would have dropped $50 doing something else in town at the Pavillion and going to Minervas for example. They sometimes have to factor in those who would have left Sioux Falls and spent the money in Omaha or Sioux City, but this is a bit tough to gauge. As I said, the AECOM study states outright that they don’t count spending by the citizens of Sioux Falls, which they shouldn’t have. However, its clear from the study that the major impact they estimate is based on the estimate of new conventions, which as they state is based on estimates from the arena/convention center representatives. I’m not going to accuse the arena/convention center representatives of not having integrity, but whenever you get information from people who have a vested interest that cannot be denied, you have to take it with a huge grain of salt, simply because its human nature to protect your own self interest. I too am interested in whether a lot of people will vote for this just because they are sick of hearing about it or not. I hear a lot of people say they are ‘sick of hearing about it’. I have a lot of interest in politics/city government so it doesn’t bother me, but most regular folks I hear from just want it done. The mayor has been clear, this isn’t over if it gets voted down. If it does get defeated, it would be very interesting to hear what the big deal killer was – location, cost, don’t think we need it. I’m not sure what it will be. I’m not sure how this will go. I’m not sure if this will be like the indoor pool idea from a few years ago that was soundly defeated, where there seemed to be a big disconnect between city leaders and the electorate (particularly the citizens in the area) or if this will be different. The fact that the Mayor has a high approval rating could be decisive in this being approved. My opinion has morphed over the last several months. I guess where I’m at right now is that again while I like the idea of a fancy new arena in theory, its much like many other things for me. For me it’s a toy. I don’t think we ‘need’ it in the sense that if we don’t have one we’re going to lose either in major quality of life or lose a ton of money (in fact I think its more likely the debt to pay this off and the ongoing operating cost will be a net negative). I’m not necessarily against it only because it won’t make money. The park system doesn’t make money, but I love our parks and bike trails and so I’m willing to pay for it for quality of life. But when I see anything as a toy and optional, I have to ask myself – can I afford it and what will it do to my budget. This is the same calculation I’m making when I’m going to buy an IPad or an events center for my city. I happen to hate debt, so one of my rules in personal life is I have to be able to pay cash for it. I know I’m never going to convince the city on that one, so the best I can do in that regard is hope that I can keep the borrowing at a minimum and the debt service to a minimum. I’m also not a fan at all of the arena location. I was for it in the beginning for the exact reason the Mayor is for it, but over time listening to the BID group and studying it, I became pretty convinced in their position. Again, the convention estimates is the issue here. If the flat floor space doesn’t bring in all of these new conventions, the whole theory falls apart. But anyway, the biggest issue I can’t get around is the debt. We’re talking about probably using up most or all of the rest of the entertainment tax to operate this thing into perpetuity (even after money is freed up in the next handful of years from Pavillion/Convention Center payoff), plus the 20-25 year debt payoff of this. We’re talking 5 or 6 million a year coming out of the second penny, and that assumes there are no overruns and the cost is as stated. That’s a pretty major amount of our 2nd penny that we’ve committed. Something has to give. In the best case it means less parks, less libraries, road construction is pushed back some. But in the worst case, we have a major flood or other huge event and our hands are tied more than they should be and cannot respond as effectively as we could have because we must make debt payments to bonds we’ve committed to. I just wish we could largely or completely pay cash for this toy essentially, but that’s a pipe dream I know. I could make a comment about how we could probably largely have the money had we taken the same yearly amount we’ll be paying and saved it for all these years we’ve been talking about this, but I won’t 🙂 Anyway, thanks for hearing me out. It should be very interesting. Let’s just say I’m torn. I see both sides of this and I think everyone on either side really believes in their viewpoint, and I think there are good arguments on both sides. I’m just concerned that for this to work, you have to make a lot of assumptions and basically they all have to be true – we get all these conventions, we get lots of new economic impact, nothing really bad happens over the next 20-25 years in the city, the operating cost isn’t too high, the cost and debt aren’t too big of a burden, etc. That’s a lot of assumptions and if any one of them doesn’t come true, it could be a real problem. That’s my biggest concern I guess…
Greg – You are kinda like my grandma, talk until you run out of air 🙂 take a breather dude. Do you know Costner? I just had to increase my memory for my site with that comment.
Just kidding. Very good points, may I suggest bullet points next time. You do point out something that even the BID people have tried to hammer at;
• Will we be able to bring in better shows because of a new EC at the Arena location?
• Will bigger and better conventions come to town because of a new EC (even though we can’t currently book our current CC)?
• Lodging and transportation. Not only do we lack the hotel rooms (we found this out when we booked a national soccer tournament) we have a podunk airport, and even more importantly our public transportation system is practically non-existent.
I have often felt that once we have overbooked our CC and Arena, upgraded to a modern airport and public transportation system and provided adequate lodging, then we can talk ‘big time’ events center.
It’s kinda like buying a snowblower when you live in an apartment building, on the third floor.
But anyway, the biggest issue I can’t get around is the debt. We’re talking about probably using up most or all of the rest of the entertainment tax to operate this thing into perpetuity (even after money is freed up in the next handful of years from Pavillion/Convention Center payoff), plus the 20-25 year debt payoff of this. We’re talking 5 or 6 million a year coming out of the second penny, and that assumes there are no overruns and the cost is as stated. That’s a pretty major amount of our 2nd penny that we’ve committed. Something has to give.
~GregN
For 17 years, from 2017 thru 2033 the cost will be 9.5 million per year. That’s at our present bare bones EC model. I do not believe they can or will stay at the hypothetical 115 million. Kinda like the River Greenway Project. When they ran into bedrock and who knows whatever else, they didn’t just stop. No, they took money from Phase II to keep plugging away on Phase I. This EC will be no different than River Greenway or Phillips To The Falls. Only on a much larger scale.
L3wis at 11:04 p.m. 08/04/11
“I am personally opposed to a new EC and will vote against it, but if a majority supports it, I won’t protest….but I am reconsidering.”
…but, I am reconsidering.
Scott, does this mean that your vote may change from a “No” to a “Yes”?
If so, I’m disappointed in you!!
Hey Greg… have you ever heard of a thing called a ‘paragraph’? At least you didn’t use all caps.
Personally I think if you took this poll today you would find these numbers tip more heavily against building it. People are taking a second glance at the economy and their stock portfolios and thinking to themselves… “hey if I don’t have enough extra money to actually use an events center… why would I want to build one”.
Besides – if a poll of registered voters is this close, the actual vote would be against because we all know those tightwad old folks come out of the woodwork to vote while the 40-something sports fans are too busy with their fantasy football leagues and the 20-something hipsters are attending a poetry reading somewhere.
I wonder what the city budget is for the “education campaign” that is going to be happening to brainwash the voters into supporting this thing. The best part is the vote isn’t even binding, so if it is 55% against they will just wait a year and build it anyway.
Good points by everyone. I apologize for the length of my post and no paragraphs 🙂 I wrote my last post quickly this morning before running out the door and didn’t format well, I just dumped! And I do plead guilty to talking (or typing) too much. I’m well known for that.
I agree with Poly43. These never things are typically never done on budget. The numbers I gave are best case scenario – my point is only reinforced and amplified as this thing gets bigger.
I have a sense Costner may be right. With the general sour economy and social mood, plus the elderly probably voting more than the young, this may be more lopsided in defeat than this poll suggests. Could be wrong.
I agree with l3wis. My big question is when I almost never see the arena sold out, what should give me faith that a 12,000 seat event center will be packed? And with all respect to the Mayor, this Pheasants Forever theory just doesn’t pass the smell test. As David Billion and others have pointed out, they have 20,000+ attendees. We have 1,800 hotel rooms and a small airport. I don’t think we’re getting Pheasants Forever…By the way l3wis, from your comment, I infer you are the author of this blog. I see you at City Council meetings occasionally and I’ve enjoyed your public comments. I particularly found your comment in regards to the water rate increase about moving infrastructure costs to user fees instead of second penny to free up second penny money quite intriguing. As you said it was only a theory, but it does make a lot of sense – where there is smoke there may be fire. Maybe I’ll say hello if I see you there sometime.
Thanks for the good discussion everyone.
You need to weight these results by the likelihood of voter turnout for a given group. The DT folks are likely to have a large turnout because of their enthusiasm on the issue, while there aren’t too many rabid supporters of the Arena site. I predict that the biggest turnout demographics will be old people (who will mostly vote against it), concert-goers / minor league team fans (a smaller group who will mostly vote in favor) and the BID folks (who will overwhelmingly vote against it). The BID people and the concert/sports people will mostly cancel out, so the final tally probably has the NOs winning, somewhere in the 55-45 or 60-40 range.
L3wis, the Dawley location (or anywhere else on the far edges of town) is an awful idea. There’s no traffic NOW, but after a show, all the SF people (which will always be a large majority) will all be heading west. Even with the Eastside corridor in place, 26th and 10th would be nightmares. You need somewhere centralized (even the Arena site is relatively central) to allow traffic to disperse.
CR – What I meant was I am reconsidering being a vocal OPPONENT!
My initial reaction to the second task force consclusion of “build it at the arena” was that they must have actually been empaneled with the task of killing the whole idea. I believe that is what we are seeing play out now. Think of the time, energy, $$ and good will that have been wasted with the location battle, vs. doing things like getting those tracks moved, promoting the overall benefits of the EC, etc.
Ruf – What are the benefits of a new EC? I’m still wondering. My boss and I were laughing today when I was telling him about the polls, etc. He says to me, “What is the benefit?” I said, “Well you, you are gonna be making BIG money from all the new customers. Shit, you better call your wife and tell her to start looking for a new, bigger home.” He was laughing and rolling his eyes. He also isn’t happy about his water bill either. I accidentally spilled some water on the floor and he says to me, “Shit, Scott, be careful, that is liquid gold.” You think your bill is cheap as homeowner, take a look at a restaurant’s bill. This is something they need to operate and CANNOT charge a customer for, they have to eat it.
Another fact to consider is if the economy gets worse, in the next few years or even if it stays the same, are people going to be able to afford to spend mega bucks attending games, events, conventions, etc.
No. Why do you think conventions and concerts are down in SF already? It has nothing to do with having a better facility.
Any poll is just… a snapshot in time…
The only important poll will happen November 8th!!
cr – I agree, this all up in the air. BTW, have you heard of any ‘official’ opposition groups? I think it would be a damn shame if there wasn’t one to debate with?
I have to think the naysayers are rallying the troops. And in naysayers – I am not including BID – I am thinking the group that arises anytime we talk about spending money. There is no possible way they will stay silent when the Mayor promised a portion of the total price tag would be private donations – and not a nickel has been accounted for. I find it interesting that Build It Now launched their campaign July 6th, including FB, and has a total of 204 people. In comparison, BID still has 2,082 and I think that number has actually grown more than BIN. The problem with the current plan – among many – is that it doesn’t inspire you or get you excited to support it. Best case scenario with the financing, the location, and pipe dreams for numbers at best, is that we HOPE it succeeds. Everyone knows – even the Mayor – within their common sense – that the money that will be made for the whole community is the surrounding area of the facility. You hope the facility itself breaks even. This is a bad plan and unless something magical happens to make this make sense – I will not support it.