HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Referendum starts process (against) Glendale arena deal with Jamison

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-04-2012, 08:14 PM
  #151
davemac1313
Registered User
 
davemac1313's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Keewatin, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 524
vCash: 143
I guess if the key to getting or not getting 6 or 7 thousand legitimate signatures will be the announcement of job cuts. If they need to cut staff and that announcement of what positions and how many come before the petition deadline, then I see no problem getting the signatures. If the 30 days run out and no announcement has been made, and the cuts are being left to the incoming council to decide, then general voter apathy will be a big part of the effort.

TL Is this the same as other years, the cuts will be announced with the budget discussions in Feb/March? If that is the case I see it a struggle without a large and organized campaign, to get the required signatures. If it is just Ken and a couple Tea Party folks trying to hit the magic number, I see failure.

With only days left in the current councils term, I can't envision them making the hard decisions on cutbacks. This has been played well by the pro coyotes group of 4, push the vote in November, and the cuts don't come for 3 to 6 months. The endgame is achieved.

My take on this and the rush to have the lease deal done. Comments?

davemac1313 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 09:27 PM
  #152
NORiculous
Registered User
 
NORiculous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yotesreign View Post
Probably ask Ken Jones, he should know. I don't have his phone number though.
Well I wouldn't call him even if you did! I was thinking maybe he was on twitter or something in order to try and get the word out.

NORiculous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 06:40 AM
  #153
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,220
vCash: 500
I think the cluster of the Risk Management Trust Fund scandal that Glendale just aired out in public last night will strongly encourage a large portion of the populace to look into this anti-AMF petition. Glendale is going to be forced to come up with almost $2 million, and very quickly, to replenish trust funds to account for illegal transfers and illegal payments made in past years out of those funds. Conveniently this discussion took place a week after the approval of the AMF. Idiots, all of them.

If only they could find a way to trim a few million bucks off the coming year's spending...... Hmmmm.... Maybe a ridiculously overpriced subsidy disguised as an Arena Management Fee. Maybe getting rid of that will keep Glendale from driving themselves in a financial sink hole so deep they'll never find their way out again.

CGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 07:18 AM
  #154
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
I think the cluster of the Risk Management Trust Fund scandal that Glendale just aired out in public last night will strongly encourage a large portion of the populace to look into this anti-AMF petition. Glendale is going to be forced to come up with almost $2 million, and very quickly, to replenish trust funds to account for illegal transfers and illegal payments made in past years out of those funds. Conveniently this discussion took place a week after the approval of the AMF. Idiots, all of them.

If only they could find a way to trim a few million bucks off the coming year's spending...... Hmmmm.... Maybe a ridiculously overpriced subsidy disguised as an Arena Management Fee. Maybe getting rid of that will keep Glendale from driving themselves in a financial sink hole so deep they'll never find their way out again.
Not unlike other locales, I don't believe Glendale's electorate is engaged enough to care. Perhaps it will spur some to assist Ken Jones.

OthmarAmmann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 07:59 AM
  #155
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aj8000 View Post
Would the city be able to sign the lease while in the limbo? Assuming of course that they actually have enough signatures?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
Not sure... but I would think not.
I am not sure but with the tax that got repelled last election (Prop 407?) the city voted and implented the tax raise which was active from september to the election results.

So, wouldn't they be able to execute the deal and IF it goes to a referendum, and WHEN it goes to a referendum, depending on the results the deal would be voided ?

Lets not forget that the city alone has the choice of putting the (possible) referendum vote some time after the signatures get approved but they could aswell wait till next election (in two years).

powerstuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 08:00 AM
  #156
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post
Well I wouldn't call him even if you did! I was thinking maybe he was on twitter or something in order to try and get the word out.
You don't know who Ken Jones is

powerstuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 08:43 AM
  #157
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
I am not sure but with the tax that got repelled last election (Prop 407?) the city voted and implented the tax raise which was active from september to the election results.

So, wouldn't they be able to execute the deal and IF it goes to a referendum, and WHEN it goes to a referendum, depending on the results the deal would be voided ?

Lets not forget that the city alone has the choice of putting the (possible) referendum vote some time after the signatures get approved but they could aswell wait till next election (in two years).
When the sales tax rollback initiative (Prop 457) qualified for the November election, the city council asked Skeete to hold off and asked to renegotiate with Jamison in order to get the cost of the AMF down in the first few years in case the initiative passed. If 457 hadn't made it to the ballot this would be all over by now.

The council could have pulled the trigger and signed the AMF anyway, but that would have put them in a real squeeze had 457 passed.

This referendum directly addresses the ordinance for executing the AMF itself. Depending on how it's worded. Different animal.

I would presume a special election would be called if they get enough signatures. But that's just my opinion.

TheLegend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 08:46 AM
  #158
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post
Well I wouldn't call him even if you did! I was thinking maybe he was on twitter or something in order to try and get the word out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
You don't know who Ken Jones is
He's a real character. But you can't help but respect the man.

He doesn't have a twitter account, but the two known people who have publicly stated they're helping do.

TheLegend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 09:08 AM
  #159
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
When the sales tax rollback initiative (Prop 457) qualified for the November election, the city council asked Skeete to hold off and asked to renegotiate with Jamison in order to get the cost of the AMF down in the first few years in case the initiative passed. If 457 hadn't made it to the ballot this would be all over by now.

The council could have pulled the trigger and signed the AMF anyway, but that would have put them in a real squeeze had 457 passed.

This referendum directly addresses the ordinance for executing the AMF itself. Depending on how it's worded. Different animal.

I would presume a special election would be called if they get enough signatures. But that's just my opinion.
what would be all over by now?

are you suggesting that no AMF renegotiation would have taken place, the original AMF would have gone thru unimpeded, jamison would have purchased the team and signed the AMF along with skeete, and jamison and his unveiled investors would now be the proud new owners of the arizona coyotes?

GuelphStormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 09:23 AM
  #160
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
He's a real character. But you can't help but respect the man.
Ken Jones reminds me of Jim Silver. Most people don't have a clue who Jim Silver is, but he was the voice of reason in Winnipeg in 1995.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comme...article624961/

There was a time when they egged the houses of Jim Silver and his little group of Winnipeg naysayers, a time when there were death threats uttered and even a couple of times when police protection was required. All because Jim Silver kept saying, "No!"

Silver and his little group did their homework. Two Brandon University economists tore apart a study that the Jets contributed $47-million a year to the Winnipeg economy, arguing that "the money would be spent anyway." Silver became the eloquent spokesperson against the plan, though he rarely said what many in the city wished to hear.

He is mildly amused to watch a similar battle being waged in Arizona. There, the argument against government funding comes from the Goldwater Institute, a right-wing organization; in Winnipeg, the arguments came from the left. But the point remains the same: Governments shouldn't prop up sports clubs. "It's quite ironic," Silver says.

"Fans come up to me," says Jim Silver, "and say, 'Boy, I hated you at the time, but, you know, years later I think you were right.'"


And Jim was right on two very important points. 1- Gov'ts shouldn't fund sports teams 2- Disposable income will continue to be spent in Glendale. If you don't have a team people still spend money, just on other stuff.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 10:22 AM
  #161
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
 
ajmidd12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hungover
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,553
vCash: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
When the sales tax rollback initiative (Prop 457) qualified for the November election, the city council asked Skeete to hold off and asked to renegotiate with Jamison in order to get the cost of the AMF down in the first few years in case the initiative passed. If 457 hadn't made it to the ballot this would be all over by now.

The council could have pulled the trigger and signed the AMF anyway, but that would have put them in a real squeeze had 457 passed.

This referendum directly addresses the ordinance for executing the AMF itself. Depending on how it's worded. Different animal.

I would presume a special election would be called if they get enough signatures. But that's just my opinion.
Just clarifying the bold for those who haven't been keeping track. NOTHING has been signed yet, the council only approved the authorization of the City Manager to sign the agreement, however they won't sign until Jamison purchases the team (as written in the agreement clauses), by late January according to Jamison (30-60 days to close - Jamisons words, not mine).


Last edited by ajmidd12: 12-05-2012 at 10:31 AM.
ajmidd12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 10:29 AM
  #162
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
I think the cluster of the Risk Management Trust Fund scandal that Glendale just aired out in public last night will strongly encourage a large portion of the populace to look into this anti-AMF petition. Glendale is going to be forced to come up with almost $2 million, and very quickly, to replenish trust funds to account for illegal transfers and illegal payments made in past years out of those funds. Conveniently this discussion took place a week after the approval of the AMF. Idiots, all of them.

If only they could find a way to trim a few million bucks off the coming year's spending...... Hmmmm.... Maybe a ridiculously overpriced subsidy disguised as an Arena Management Fee. Maybe getting rid of that will keep Glendale from driving themselves in a financial sink hole so deep they'll never find their way out again.
I expect that 90% of those that watched the meeting last night are either Canadians or Coyotes fans. Neither of which are going to be much help to Ken Jones.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 10:52 AM
  #163
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,573
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Ken Jones reminds me of Jim Silver. Most people don't have a clue who Jim Silver is, but he was the voice of reason in Winnipeg in 1995.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comme...article624961/

There was a time when they egged the houses of Jim Silver and his little group of Winnipeg naysayers, a time when there were death threats uttered and even a couple of times when police protection was required. All because Jim Silver kept saying, "No!"

Silver and his little group did their homework. Two Brandon University economists tore apart a study that the Jets contributed $47-million a year to the Winnipeg economy, arguing that "the money would be spent anyway." Silver became the eloquent spokesperson against the plan, though he rarely said what many in the city wished to hear.

He is mildly amused to watch a similar battle being waged in Arizona. There, the argument against government funding comes from the Goldwater Institute, a right-wing organization; in Winnipeg, the arguments came from the left. But the point remains the same: Governments shouldn't prop up sports clubs. "It's quite ironic," Silver says.

"Fans come up to me," says Jim Silver, "and say, 'Boy, I hated you at the time, but, you know, years later I think you were right.'"


And Jim was right on two very important points. 1- Gov'ts shouldn't fund sports teams 2- Disposable income will continue to be spent in Glendale. If you don't have a team people still spend money, just on other stuff.
I think Glendale, population 200,000, is trying to bring money in from other parts of the Phoenix area. If they can get 10,000 outsiders to come to Glendale 44 nights a year, spending money at that mall, having supper, a couple of drinks, parking, etc. - that adds up. 10,000 Coyotes fans from outside Glendale, spending $50 each on average, would result in $22,000,000 in economic activity each year. It means jobs, taxes, money flowing in. If it's $100 spent on average, that's $44 million in direct economic activity. So if $15 million/year in Arena Management Fees gets you $44 million that otherwise would be spent outside your city, then is it a good deal?

Gm0ney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:05 AM
  #164
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
I think Glendale, population 200,000, is trying to bring money in from other parts of the Phoenix area. If they can get 10,000 outsiders to come to Glendale 44 nights a year, spending money at that mall, having supper, a couple of drinks, parking, etc. - that adds up. 10,000 Coyotes fans from outside Glendale, spending $50 each on average, would result in $22,000,000 in economic activity each year. It means jobs, taxes, money flowing in. If it's $100 spent on average, that's $44 million in direct economic activity. So if $15 million/year in Arena Management Fees gets you $44 million that otherwise would be spent outside your city, then is it a good deal?
If it was the retailers at Westgate giving Jamison the $15M per year, then I would agree with you, but the CoG only gets the taxes from this economic activity which IIRC they estimate is ~ $2.5M per year. So the CoG is giving $15M to get $2.5M. The only people that benefit from this traffic are the retailers and their employees ( which is a good thing ) but for the average taxpayer there is no benefit.

That was the basis of the original plan for creating a CFD around Westgate. The theory was that if it's the retailers are going to benefit from having the Coyotes pull people in then the retailers should help pay for it. Never got off the ground though.

As well, the new Tanger outlet just opened up is estimated to pull in 5,000,000 people per year, which is 10 times the buying power that the Coyotes could pull in. So this economic activity will easily offset anything that is lost if the Coyotes leave. Westgate doesn't need the Coyotes IMO. They will be fine without them.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:09 AM
  #165
calmdown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
I think Glendale, population 200,000, is trying to bring money in from other parts of the Phoenix area. If they can get 10,000 outsiders to come to Glendale 44 nights a year, spending money at that mall, having supper, a couple of drinks, parking, etc. - that adds up. 10,000 Coyotes fans from outside Glendale, spending $50 each on average, would result in $22,000,000 in economic activity each year. It means jobs, taxes, money flowing in. If it's $100 spent on average, that's $44 million in direct economic activity. So if $15 million/year in Arena Management Fees gets you $44 million that otherwise would be spent outside your city, then is it a good deal?
The lower cost tickets are:
UPPER BOWL
US $26.00 - US $50.00
US $26.00 Ticket + US $7.00 Fees =
US $33.00
Limited Availability at this Price for this Option No Tickets Currently Available at this Price for this Option – Try "Find Resale Tickets" Below
US $50.00 Ticket + US $9.00 Fees =
US $59.00

On a $50, not a lot to spend around And those are among the lowest in the league and they failed to sell them for almost 20 years... Not sure it is a good idea

So the $50 would result only with $500,000 tickets sold 50 X 10,000 (but there is not enough seats at that price)

calmdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:15 AM
  #166
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,448
vCash: 500
Geez...it never ends, does it?

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:45 AM
  #167
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
If it was the retailers at Westgate giving Jamison the $15M per year, then I would agree with you, but the CoG only gets the taxes from this economic activity which IIRC they estimate is ~ $2.5M per year. So the CoG is giving $15M to get $2.5M. The only people that benefit from this traffic are the retailers and their employees ( which is a good thing ) but for the average taxpayer there is no benefit.

...
That's like going to Westgate to buy chewing gum that costs $1 but you give the cashier and extra $5 because...you really like them Yotes.

powerstuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:52 AM
  #168
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,573
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
If it was the retailers at Westgate giving Jamison the $15M per year, then I would agree with you, but the CoG only gets the taxes from this economic activity which IIRC they estimate is ~ $2.5M per year. So the CoG is giving $15M to get $2.5M. The only people that benefit from this traffic are the retailers and their employees ( which is a good thing ) but for the average taxpayer there is no benefit.

That was the basis of the original plan for creating a CFD around Westgate. The theory was that if it's the retailers are going to benefit from having the Coyotes pull people in then the retailers should help pay for it. Never got off the ground though.

As well, the new Tanger outlet just opened up is estimated to pull in 5,000,000 people per year, which is 10 times the buying power that the Coyotes could pull in. So this economic activity will easily offset anything that is lost if the Coyotes leave. Westgate doesn't need the Coyotes IMO. They will be fine without them.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply it was a good idea. But I can see how that line of thinking makes these dimbulb councillors think they're actually getting a good deal. Gotta spend money to make money!

Gm0ney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 04:53 PM
  #169
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
If it was the retailers at Westgate giving Jamison the $15M per year, then I would agree with you, but the CoG only gets the taxes from this economic activity which IIRC they estimate is ~ $2.5M per year. So the CoG is giving $15M to get $2.5M. The only people that benefit from this traffic are the retailers and their employees ( which is a good thing ) but for the average taxpayer there is no benefit.

That was the basis of the original plan for creating a CFD around Westgate. The theory was that if it's the retailers are going to benefit from having the Coyotes pull people in then the retailers should help pay for it. Never got off the ground though.

As well, the new Tanger outlet just opened up is estimated to pull in 5,000,000 people per year, which is 10 times the buying power that the Coyotes could pull in. So this economic activity will easily offset anything that is lost if the Coyotes leave. Westgate doesn't need the Coyotes IMO. They will be fine without them.
You are only counting the direct economic benefit without the acceleration. The money from outside is spent again, and more likely within the region, creating economic acceleration. It still may not justify the investment, but it is more than what is counted with direct payments only.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 08:52 PM
  #170
GF
Registered User
 
GF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 412
vCash: 500
So about that referendum. Have they started getting signatures yet?

I can't imagine a couple folks around the malls in this time of the year can't get the needed signatures...

GF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:12 PM
  #171
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
You are only counting the direct economic benefit without the acceleration. The money from outside is spent again, and more likely within the region, creating economic acceleration. It still may not justify the investment, but it is more than what is counted with direct payments only.
The topic of "should cities spend on sports" comes up again and again on a lot of threads here and every so often spawns a thread of its own. This is what it boils down to:

1) No one believes that at the current level of costs of venues that a city is actually going to make back its investment in taxes on the direct economic activity and jobs generated by the venue.

2) There are certain prestige factors for cities in having a major league team (or multiple teams) in its city. Big cities like NY, LA, etc don't really need that which is why they don't spend a lot of money on venues where as mid-sized cities ante up. The perception of Oklahoma City changed when it got an NBA team. Its something you invest in to get the tag of "major league city." I lived in Cleveland for many years and there were some people who claimed Cleveland could have done a lot of things with the nearly $600 million it spent on its three sports venues, to which I responded "yes but then you would be Dayton." We love sports in North America and there are people who factor things like the presence of major league teams when they decide where they want to live or a company decides where to locate a data center etc.

3) Its an amenity that people enjoy. No one ever tries to calculate the Return on Investment for a park.

4) Venues can attract other events (go back to the quality of life issue). I used to visit Louisville a couple of times a year for conferences for a bank I was with and they were about to build the KFC Yum! Center and I was curious why they were doing that with no team on the horizon and someone explained that they couldn't get the bigger concerts without a better arena.

The Glendale clusterfluke is an extreme example of the concept being poorly executed

1) The Phoenix area has 3 teams there wasn't that much benefit of a 4th

2) The costs were borne by one suburb when the benefits spread throughout the region. These sort of operations need to be funded by either the anchor city or the county.

3) There are too many venues competing for the event business.

4) Not enough hockey fans

aqib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:32 PM
  #172
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
The topic of "should cities spend on sports" comes up again and again on a lot of threads here and every so often spawns a thread of its own. This is what it boils down to:

1) No one believes that at the current level of costs of venues that a city is actually going to make back its investment in taxes on the direct economic activity and jobs generated by the venue.

2) There are certain prestige factors for cities in having a major league team (or multiple teams) in its city. Big cities like NY, LA, etc don't really need that which is why they don't spend a lot of money on venues where as mid-sized cities ante up. The perception of Oklahoma City changed when it got an NBA team. Its something you invest in to get the tag of "major league city." I lived in Cleveland for many years and there were some people who claimed Cleveland could have done a lot of things with the nearly $600 million it spent on its three sports venues, to which I responded "yes but then you would be Dayton." We love sports in North America and there are people who factor things like the presence of major league teams when they decide where they want to live or a company decides where to locate a data center etc.

3) Its an amenity that people enjoy. No one ever tries to calculate the Return on Investment for a park.

4) Venues can attract other events (go back to the quality of life issue). I used to visit Louisville a couple of times a year for conferences for a bank I was with and they were about to build the KFC Yum! Center and I was curious why they were doing that with no team on the horizon and someone explained that they couldn't get the bigger concerts without a better arena.

The Glendale clusterfluke is an extreme example of the concept being poorly executed

1) The Phoenix area has 3 teams there wasn't that much benefit of a 4th

2) The costs were borne by one suburb when the benefits spread throughout the region. These sort of operations need to be funded by either the anchor city or the county.

3) There are too many venues competing for the event business.

4) Not enough hockey fans
I have seen most of the arguments. The positive ones essentially hinge on moving economy towards the target region and away from another. The revenue acceleration principle applies both ways, but it is there. When Joe the counterperson in the arena gets paid, he will generally spend it with Jane, another counterperson in the same vicinity. But it also takes away from David and Dawn, two counterpeople in areas a town or two over.

I agree that the municipality was too small to bear brunt the costs. Basically sold on sugarplums which they were doing with various development projects even when I lived in the area. I don't think that there were too many competing venues considering the population of the area and that population is sufficient to support 4 major league teams. I do think that the arena was poorly located within the area (I did live in the Phoenix area decades ago and have visited since.)

BTW, I would suggest that HP (SJ's entry in the arena sweeps) is generating payback for the municipality between rent and taxation. One of the few success stories.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:41 PM
  #173
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
BTW, I would suggest that HP (SJ's entry in the arena sweeps) is generating payback for the municipality between rent and taxation. One of the few success stories.
Since virtually all studies show that an arena or stadium does not generate significant new economic activity (they just displace spending from other parts of the region) public spending by a city (like San Jose) could theoretically be justified by direct economic impact if it siphons off spending and tax revenue from surrounding jurisdictions. Public funding at a higher level of gov't (county, state/province, etc) is much less justifiable in direct economic terms.


Last edited by kdb209: 12-06-2012 at 12:20 AM.
kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:42 PM
  #174
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I have seen most of the arguments. The positive ones essentially hinge on moving economy towards the target region and away from another. The revenue acceleration principle applies both ways, but it is there. When Joe the counterperson in the arena gets paid, he will generally spend it with Jane, another counterperson in the same vicinity. But it also takes away from David and Dawn, two counterpeople in areas a town or two over.

I agree that the municipality was too small to bear brunt the costs. Basically sold on sugarplums which they were doing with various development projects even when I lived in the area. I don't think that there were too many competing venues considering the population of the area and that population is sufficient to support 4 major league teams. I do think that the arena was poorly located within the area (I did live in the Phoenix area decades ago and have visited since.)

BTW, I would suggest that HP (SJ's entry in the arena sweeps) is generating payback for the municipality between rent and taxation. One of the few success stories.
Well you have the US Airways Arena downtown which is the other major league venue that theoretically you would be competing with for the A-List acts these days. Then you have the Suns old arena, the arena where ASU basketball plays for the B-List acts. Even New Jersey found having IZod Center (Nets/Devils old arena) and Prudential Center competing was too much.

aqib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-06-2012, 12:06 AM
  #175
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Since virtually all studies show that an arena or stadium does not generate significant new economic activity (they just displace spending from other parts of the region) public spending by a city could theoretically be justified by direct economic impact if it siphons off spending and tax revenue from surrounding jurisdictions. Public funding at a higher level of gov't (county, state/province, etc) is much less justifiable in direct economic terms.
I already agreed and subscribe to the siphon effect. Essentially, the only new activity is the construction itself which is limited and of short duration.

I agree that asking for a larger body to handle the cost is beyond the reach. I wouldn't have even dreamed of suggesting Maricopa County. What I was saying regarding Glendale is that they weren't the best municipality in the area to handle it. They likely would have been better off in Scottsdale/Tempe which have a higher density of upper middle and upper class nearby.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.