While I do know the name of the real estate broker asking questions about this project, I have a feeling they are not the ‘real player’ in this deal. I believe they are a hired gun to do some nosing around.
I guess whoever is exploring this has been asking what the city would be willing to invest. I’m not sure if that is a public private partnership, a TIF, tax rebates or all of the above. I do know they want to build it ‘around’ the Sanford Sports Complex area.
The city already loses around a cool half million on the MAC a year, and I can’t see us investing in this. I guess I could see Sanford chipping in since they have already mentioned they may want to build an indoor pool at the sports complex.
But an indoor water park is a whole other ball of wax. On the cheap you might be able to build a stand alone facility for around $35 million, but if you want all the bells and whistles you are looking at well over $50 million.
Could it make money? I believe it could in the long run, but your initial investment might be a little hard to come up with.
We have seen this quite often in Sioux Falls, big ideas and big projects but when it comes to getting the investors, it falls through. We saw this with Village on the River who asked to reduce the size of the project.
It amazes me with the billions of dollars we hold in South Dakota for private trusts that we can’t somehow find a way to tap into that money. Oh that’s right, the state is controlled by anti-tax right wingers.
Where are they going to find the lifeguards?
“It amazes me with the billions of dollars we hold in South Dakota for private trusts that we can’t somehow find a way to tap into that money…..”
Yah, you would think at the Governor’s Hunt chasing ring-necks could rein in some real money, too. But maybe they are just going after the wrong necks.
( – and Woodstock states: “I don’t care what you do, but just don’t invite Cheney.”)
Those trusts are here due to the tax laws; there are other states that offer no tax- impose taxes here and see the trusts move. Ask those pro tax left wingers about tax payers ability to move
Quick comment on the notion of a government (at any level) “losing money” that keeps cropping up in your vernacular. Government is NOT A BUSINESS. It has neither profits nor losses. Government is responsible to PROVIDE SERVICES. If you want to analyze the propriety of a governmental service on the basis of profit/loss – apply your thinking to streets – or the PD – to get an idea of whether or not it’s reasonable. Tell us how many millions the city “loses” on streets, or policing every year. Looking forward to seeing the numbers and the follow-on “reasoning” that we need to eliminate streets and police – because they are a “losing” proposition.
Everyone, please read the above comment from rufusx along with this (from the Argus today on a questionable proposed bus system change): “. . . pilot program to test whether a request-based ride structure could replace the city-provided service that’s been hemorrhaging taxpayer dollars for decades.” Was that terminology from Argus reporter Sneve himself? Or was it fed to him by the city? Either way, I suggest taking a minute to educate both him and city leaders, using the points so well stated by rufusx, that buses are a city SERVICE. Of course, this costs money. But we can do better service. And at the same time, we also must do better for the environment, which will take a ramped up fixed-route system, rather than on-demand.
i agree that the city should provide services like fire protection, streets, snow removal, etc. i don’t think that the city paying for a water park should fall into that category though.
The city needs to stop being involved in creating and funding (on backs of taxpayers especially) businesses in this town. Why they have hands in wallets for theater, indoor pool, Denny stadium, etc as is already is beyond me. This needs to stop!