|
|
Post by kozy on Mar 2, 2014 13:10:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by RB Aztec on Mar 2, 2014 13:36:46 GMT -8
I would hardly call it morally wrong. I think it is more of an ROI decision. If building a sports venue can bring in more development and more tax revenue than it costs, I have not problem with it. The key, though, is making sure that the estimated ROI is not BS and that the ROI is measured on a regular basis after the venue is built. There is also the intangibles that are hard to measure like the added pride in the city that it's citizens have. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 2, 2014 22:01:57 GMT -8
I would hardly call it morally wrong. I think it is more of an ROI decision. If building a sports venue can bring in more development and more tax revenue than it costs, I have not problem with it. The key, though, is making sure that the estimated ROI is not BS and that the ROI is measured on a regular basis after the venue is built. There is also the intangibles that are hard to measure like the added pride in the city that it's citizens have. If you pay for the right study, a new arena/stadium/ballpark will bring your municipality the sun, the moon, and the stars. In reality, it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Aztec89 on Mar 3, 2014 6:04:30 GMT -8
Off Topic?
San Diego is not NBA city.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecbo on Mar 3, 2014 7:34:26 GMT -8
The magazine in which this article was posted is aimed at hillbillies, survivalists, and people who get fiction confused with non-fiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Mar 3, 2014 9:41:53 GMT -8
Off Topic? San Diego is not NBA city. San Diego is an NFL city, the city council and the new mayor are going to be pushing to use taxpayer money to build a new stadium for a billionaire owner and a league that makes billions. And you can be sure that the politicos will be pushing for no citizen input, like a vote. This is not off topic. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecfankrishnan on Mar 3, 2014 9:43:00 GMT -8
First, Sacramento is NOT bankrupt and never was - that was Stockton. Second, the plan does NOT raise new taxes. The subsidy is paid for by leveraging existing city parking assets that go up in value once the new arena is built. Meaning the city will use the funds generating from parking for arena events to pay for the subsidy. It can't even be argued that those funds could be better used somewhere else, because they would not exist without the arena events. Parking will be very similar to what you have here at Petco, except the city in Sacramento owns all those lots.
Sacramento city will issue bonds to front the money and will use parking proceeds to the pay off the bonds. So the deal is not completely without risk, if the parking revenue do not meet projections, the city could be on the hook for the difference. However, the City and independent auditors all say the projections are conservative.
That is the crux of the deal, but of course it is more complex. The City also sold large pieces of city owned property to the current owners of the Kings. Most think the price was a good deal for the city, but some are arguing it was undervalued. At the end of the day, the cities general fund was protected and the subsidy is the price of doing business if Sacramento wanted to retain the Kings. The new arena will be a great thing for Sacramento as it will truly revitalized a currently blighted downtown area.
|
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Mar 3, 2014 10:31:15 GMT -8
Off Topic? San Diego is not NBA city. A myth. Thirty long years ago, pre-Michael Jordan, a lot of towns were considered to be lousy NBA cities. But all the others still have their franchises today, and they're thriving. San Diego does not because a dismal owner ran the club into the ground and then used a convenient out clause in his lease to skip town. Today the NBA works everywhere. If New Orleans and Sacto can draw 17,000 a night, San Diego would too, in the right arena. |
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Mar 3, 2014 11:38:29 GMT -8
If I took the time to make a list I am sure I could find things the City currently does that is morally wrong. Utilizing public funds in some capacity to build a sports complex for San Diego would not make that list. |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Mar 3, 2014 13:01:37 GMT -8
Article in the LA Times today SDSU is thinking of raising "student success fees " $200-$500 per semester to provide more classes, programs, and improved graduation rates and less time . If that flies doubt there will be money from students to pay for a new FB facility on campus.
If a new multipurpose facility was built in San Diego , how many fans do you think would attend a MBB game vs Kansas or Arizona . Same facility could hold a Final Four , or even regional . Maybe the facility could spark some interest from other conferences to add SDSU- can not hurt to dream. Where does Big 12 hold their championship game . Every thing helps the resume and the recruiting .
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 3, 2014 22:42:07 GMT -8
Off Topic? San Diego is not NBA city. A myth. Thirty long years ago, pre-Michael Jordan, a lot of towns were considered to be lousy NBA cities. But all the others still have their franchises today, and they're thriving. San Diego does not because a dismal owner ran the club into the ground and then used a convenient out clause in his lease to skip town. Today the NBA works everywhere. If New Orleans and Sacto can draw 17,000 a night, San Diego would too, in the right arena. The NBA is done with San Diego. They will not be back. Maybe I can put it another way--the NBA will be back in San Diego just as soon as an NHL team moves here. For that matter, I think the NHL would do better here, and I don't expect to see them here in my lifetime. |
|
|
|
Post by david110 on Mar 4, 2014 7:02:31 GMT -8
A myth. Thirty long years ago, pre-Michael Jordan, a lot of towns were considered to be lousy NBA cities. But all the others still have their franchises today, and they're thriving. San Diego does not because a dismal owner ran the club into the ground and then used a convenient out clause in his lease to skip town. Today the NBA works everywhere. If New Orleans and Sacto can draw 17,000 a night, San Diego would too, in the right arena. The NBA is done with San Diego. They will not be back. Maybe I can put it another way--the NBA will be back in San Diego just as soon as an NHL team moves here. For that matter, I think the NHL would do better here, and I don't expect to see them here in my lifetime. With the Ducks, Kings, Clips, and Lakers all with in a 2.5 hour drive, both those leagues won't expand/relocate |
|
|
|
Post by dlangford9 on Mar 4, 2014 11:53:00 GMT -8
First, Sacramento is NOT bankrupt and never was - that was Stockton. Second, the plan does NOT raise new taxes. The subsidy is paid for by leveraging existing city parking assets that go up in value once the new arena is built. Meaning the city will use the funds generating from parking for arena events to pay for the subsidy. It can't even be argued that those funds could be better used somewhere else, because they would not exist without the arena events. Parking will be very similar to what you have here at Petco, except the city in Sacramento owns all those lots. Sacramento city will issue bonds to front the money and will use parking proceeds to the pay off the bonds. So the deal is not completely without risk, if the parking revenue do not meet projections, the city could be on the hook for the difference. However, the City and independent auditors all say the projections are conservative. That is the crux of the deal, but of course it is more complex. The City also sold large pieces of city owned property to the current owners of the Kings. Most think the price was a good deal for the city, but some are arguing it was undervalued. At the end of the day, the cities general fund was protected and the subsidy is the price of doing business if Sacramento wanted to retain the Kings. The new arena will be a great thing for Sacramento as it will truly revitalized a currently blighted downtown area. Wow, an educated opinion. What a concept! |
|
|
|
Post by Sdsu4life on Aug 22, 2014 5:38:43 GMT -8
No, Sacramento is not Bankrupt. Idk where you got that assumption. Now, there is a small city 50 miles south of it that declared bankruptcy over a year ago. But Sac is most definitely not bankrupt and no where close to it. They are doing just fine. |
|
|
|
Post by azteclou on Aug 22, 2014 7:21:08 GMT -8
The only stadium concept that makes sense in San Diego is a multi purpose stadium. That would mean a retractable roof. That would allow the city to knock down Sports Arena and use that land for new property tax revenue. If this stadium is downtown then Qualcomm can be torn down which means more $ for the city. A more likely scenario is building a new stadium at Qualcomm site. If the SF 49'ers can build a new stadium privately financed (for the most part) so can the Spanos'!
|
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Aug 22, 2014 9:57:11 GMT -8
I would hardly call it morally wrong. I think it is more of an ROI decision. If building a sports venue can bring in more development and more tax revenue than it costs, I have not problem with it. The key, though, is making sure that the estimated ROI is not BS and that the ROI is measured on a regular basis after the venue is built. There is also the intangibles that are hard to measure like the added pride in the city that it's citizens have. Case closed. This is the beginning and end of the argument. What is the ROI? Make the case and let the voters decide. The blind opposition of some to public funding of a stadium is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Aug 22, 2014 13:37:31 GMT -8
The NBA is done with San Diego. They will not be back. Maybe I can put it another way--the NBA will be back in San Diego just as soon as an NHL team moves here. For that matter, I think the NHL would do better here, and I don't expect to see them here in my lifetime. With the Ducks, Kings, Clips, and Lakers all with in a 2.5 hour drive, both those leagues won't expand/relocate The last 4 times I drove down to San Diego from LA, it took me 3.5-4 hours. I left on Fridays around 1pm. |
|
|
|
Post by Sdsu4life on Aug 22, 2014 14:06:34 GMT -8
With the Ducks, Kings, Clips, and Lakers all with in a 2.5 hour drive, both those leagues won't expand/relocate The last 4 times I drove down to San Diego from LA, it took me 3.5-4 hours. I left on Fridays around 1pm. Driving 120 miles does not take 3.5-4 hours. Just driving 60mph, it will take you just 2 hours. And no one drives 60, you can drive 70-75 comfortably. You can drive You said a key point...1 pm on a friday. You hit traffice. We are talkign about distance from point A to point B, not a travel time through rush hour traffic. Even if you hit traffic, 4 hours is pretty sad due. Hopefully you stayed in the slow lane and didn't get slow down people who were driving the speed limit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 14:17:34 GMT -8
With the Ducks, Kings, Clips, and Lakers all with in a 2.5 hour drive, both those leagues won't expand/relocate . I left on Fridays around 1pm. Me too. But of course I had to take the 405....that thing is a parking lot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 16:58:18 GMT -8
4 out of the 5 biggest "employers" in SuCramento are Government run entities and #5 is Blue Diamond Growers.#5 is the only one of the top 5 employers that provides positive income growth to SuCramento. The first four only inhibit the economy and have bankrupted the Socialist City of Liberal Dreams. There is more unemployed people in SuCramento BY FAR than San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego or Los Angeles.
It not true that San Diego could not support a NBA team. SDSU Aztecs basketball games will be sold out for who knows how long because they are a winning team something San Diego NEEDS. Imagine the Spurs moving to San Diego(hypothetical) and Kawhi Leonard in his prime. The San Diego Spurs would run out of season tickets fast.The Chargers are one of the biggest UNDERACHIEVING sports teams in recent memory. Ryan Leaf was a curse on the Chargers and it will not go away. Chargers had their chance to move to the LA Market(where there is more investment dollars and I guess Magic Johnson is rich and has an endless amount of money lol) and goofed that up. One of the best Chargers seasons actually was in LA when they had a record of 10-4 in 1960 and made it to the championship game and lost to the Houston Oilers 24-16.
|
|
