HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Official New Arena Thread: Part 2

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-17-2012, 04:26 PM
  #101
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
You are left with a grand total of $125M that is squarely on the shoulders of the Edmonton tax payer. At the Province's borrowing rate the cost to the tax payers to retire this debt would be about $4.8M per year. Now the plan is to cover this from additional revenues associated with the development around the arena. It is hard to say how much the additional taxes would generate in real new money. But even if the answer is 0 you are looking at an additional .475% on top of the current taxes if this was to be funded completely by a tax hike.

By the City's own figures a typical $357K property would see a one time tax increase of about $8 to cover this portion of the building.
Maybe it's just the wording but this doesn't add up to me.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 04:30 PM
  #102
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
State of the art technology comes with benefits but it also comes with pitfalls such as it's more expensive to repair/replace and in many cases more expensive to maintain.

And that is assuming that everything gets dialed in and operating as intended in the first place.

State of the art doesn't equal reliability.
Fair enough as well. I've often wondered the same and I'm familiar with your comments on that.

I would imagine that the LEEDs design elements and other reduced footprint designs for such a facility would involve extra attention keeping it that way. For instance all windows, seals etc. But again wouldn't there be some such warranty in this nature of LEED build that guarantees repairs to standard through a term?

Replacement is online now  
Old
07-17-2012, 04:42 PM
  #103
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,766
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Fair enough as well. I've often wondered the same and I'm familiar with your comments on that.

I would imagine that the LEEDs design elements and other reduced footprint designs for such a facility would involve extra attention keeping it that way. For instance all windows, seals etc. But again wouldn't there be some such warranty in this nature of LEED build that guarantees repairs to standard through a term?
I don't know much about LEED in terms of warranty, but outside of the product itself being under warranty I highly doubt that window seals or anything like that would be much of a warranty. If you don't catch it in the first however months you probably are **** out of luck.

Sure some things will have a long warranty, but like most other construction that is done there isn't going to be much of a warranty. Some stuff will come with the standard 2-3 years, others will be months.

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
07-17-2012, 04:44 PM
  #104
dnicks17
Moderator
.
 
dnicks17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,525
vCash: 500
Just a reminder...

1) Flaming: Do not post any messages that harass, insult (name calling), belittle, threaten or mock other members. Debates are fine, but critique the opinion, not the person. Personal attacks are not permitted. Do not call other posters trolls. Do not use sweeping generalizations and plural pronouns to cloak personal attacks. For example if a poster(s) states that he thinks 'x' is a good idea, replying that "Anyone who supports 'x' is an idiot" is a personal attack. Do not start threads to call out and embarrass other members; or make posts about ignore lists.

dnicks17 is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 04:47 PM
  #105
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,766
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnicks17 View Post
Just a reminder...

1) Flaming: Do not post any messages that harass, insult (name calling), belittle, threaten or mock other members. Debates are fine, but critique the opinion, not the person. Personal attacks are not permitted. Do not call other posters trolls. Do not use sweeping generalizations and plural pronouns to cloak personal attacks. For example if a poster(s) states that he thinks 'x' is a good idea, replying that "Anyone who supports 'x' is an idiot" is a personal attack. Do not start threads to call out and embarrass other members; or make posts about ignore lists.
Even if 'x' is Doug Maclean?

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
07-17-2012, 04:48 PM
  #106
tsnTpoint
Registered User
 
tsnTpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 824
vCash: 500
Fact or fiction Replacement?


Do you or do you not attend Rexall Place for hockey games/concerts. I have you on record saying that you do not attend because of various reasons among the crowd.


Would it be wrong to say that your biased against the new rink because you do not have a good time attending sporting/concert events in public?

tsnTpoint is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 04:57 PM
  #107
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsnTpoint View Post
Fact or fiction Replacement?


Do you or do you not attend Rexall Place for hockey games/concerts. I have you on record saying that you do not attend because of various reasons among the crowd.


Would it be wrong to say that your biased against the new rink because you do not have a good time attending sporting/concert events in public?
I just attended an event last night. Although certainly not my typical choice when it comes to entertainment.

I've attended hundreds of concerts, many other hockey games. Although I'm moving past my interest and particularly in paying for Oilers hockey due to the overpriced product involved here. I attended World Juniors here, attended some Oil Kings games as well. I'd watch the Golden Bear play anywhere. I go to a ton of Eskimos games and concerts at Commonwealth as well.

Will I buck up 200bucks/ticket alone to see the Oilers. No, not often or likely. I don't see that as good value.

Replacement is online now  
Old
07-17-2012, 04:59 PM
  #108
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Fair enough as well. I've often wondered the same and I'm familiar with your comments on that.

I would imagine that the LEEDs design elements and other reduced footprint designs for such a facility would involve extra attention keeping it that way. For instance all windows, seals etc. But again wouldn't there be some such warranty in this nature of LEED build that guarantees repairs to standard through a term?
Nah, LEED doesn't ensure anything in terms of guaranteed reliability or time tested standards.

Although there is a place for "innovation", it is largely just about implimenting the right combination of existing strategies.

For example, if you pay particular attention to the building assemblies in an effort to minimize heatloss you will by nature be getting a more efficient building, which is obviously the goal. However, even if you create a building that has a minimum load requirement, that load is going to be served by the same equipement (for the most part) as a non LEED building which means it will be subject to the same servicing issues as Rexall - for example.

Now of course LEED will encourage higher efficient equipment as well which comes at a premium price and is generally more complicated than standard and much simpler equipment which means it's often more expensive to maintain and repair when - not if - required.

It's a program that should require that close attention gets paid to return on investment but that is a step that is often glossed over due to over zealous project teams that treat it more as an invitation to prove their creativity and stroke their egos as opposed to making prudent decisions. This being the base of my objections to using it on publically funded buildings.

LEED is, for the lack of better wording, just an expensive program that provides direction and a checks system on achieving goals for building 'green'. Even then the 'check' system in place is largely based on an honour system more so than any kind of LEED based enforcement or physical inspection process (in fairness the group involved in this project takes it very serious).

copperandblue is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 04:59 PM
  #109
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Finally, yes, my real reason in opposing this is more philosophical, which we've discussed before.

I'm with you. I philosophically do not agree with this.
Now build the damn thing.

I honestly hold the onus on the players for simply making more money then the sport itself supports. Perhaps the owners and players union should own the arena's together

People will say blame the ownersfor paying so much. Then we'll blame the owners for icing cheap teams. Then we'll stop watching our cheap team. ahh what a vicious cycle. They killed us with our love of the game.

Lacaar is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 05:20 PM
  #110
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
I'm with you. I philosophically do not agree with this.
Now build the damn thing.

I honestly hold the onus on the players for simply making more money then the sport itself supports. Perhaps the owners and players union should own the arena's together

People will say blame the ownersfor paying so much. Then we'll blame the owners for icing cheap teams. Then we'll stop watching our cheap team. ahh what a vicious cycle. They killed us with our love of the game.
Yeah, I think the players, and Fehr, won't have much leverage in the new CBA and their share is going down (my prediction is 50%) but thats another thread and topic. Although it relates to this one and should make owner profitability less of an issue. Of course the owners have nobody but themselves to blame if their endeavor is not profitable.
They made it what it is.

Replacement is online now  
Old
07-17-2012, 05:30 PM
  #111
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
Given that Katz has legally contracted to service the debt, this is a wildly misleading statement.
And since the city got a long close look at the books for the Katz Group, I'm sure they priced in the default risk appropriately.

Right?

Silver is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 05:40 PM
  #112
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,673
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver View Post
And since the city got a long close look at the books for the Katz Group, I'm sure they priced in the default risk appropriately.

Right?
If the City wasn't willing to extend its credit worthiness to Katz he would have simply reduced his contribution by the present value of the additional borrowing costs he would face on the open market. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the City is being compensated for taking on the risk.

worraps is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 05:46 PM
  #113
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
If the City wasn't willing to extend its credit worthiness to Katz he would have simply reduced his contribution by the present value of the additional borrowing costs he would face on the open market. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the City is being compensated for taking on the risk.
How'd they price the risk? WAG?

These guys are pros. I bet Mandel and Farbrother always get the extended warranty and the undercoating.

Silver is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 06:01 PM
  #114
Gord
Tesla
 
Gord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,765
vCash: 0
So here's the state of play. Linda Sloan, who has always opposed the arena, is more opposed than ever. Kerry Diotte ditto. But Tony Caterina, who voted in favour of the arena is also looking very unhappy with the latest developments. Bryan Anderson wants to cut costs with Butterdome-style cladding. Ben Henderson, quite properly, worries about losing the shops and restaurants that would bring the arena to life during the day.

by Paula Simons 3:50 PM


my personal note. if Bryan Anderson really said that, I hope nobody listens to him. we'll end up with a piece of crap for a rink if they cheap out in ways such as that, and the city will look more like loserville than it ever has.


Last edited by Gord: 07-17-2012 at 06:09 PM.
Gord is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 06:01 PM
  #115
Dabomb
Registered User
 
Dabomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,886
vCash: 500
J"ason Gregor ‏@JasonGregor

Interesting...Councillor Anderson hints/suggests that an announcement from Province is coming soon... #abouttime #yegarena"

Hopefully if/when the Province comes up with the $100 million, the Katz group will come up with whatevers over budget and we can get this state of the art arena built in all its glory.

Dabomb is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 06:04 PM
  #116
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,766
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord View Post
So here's the state of play. Linda Sloan, who has always opposed the arena, is more opposed than ever. Kerry Diotte ditto. But Tony Caterina, who voted in favour of the arena is also looking very unhappy with the latest developments. Bryan Anderson wants to cut costs with Butterdome-style cladding. Ben Henderson, quite properly, worries about losing the shops and restaurants that would bring the arena to life during the day.

by Paula Simons 3:50 PM
Is there anyway they can just build this structure allowing future upgrades? Maybe in 10 years from now they go ahead and add those shops and bistros?

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
07-17-2012, 06:04 PM
  #117
Gord
Tesla
 
Gord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,765
vCash: 0
more from Paula simons at the meeting

My colleague Gordon Kent, who tracked the mayor to a scrum during a break, says the mayor has vowed not to build any more "crap" - his word, not mine.
by Paula Simons 3:55 PM

Henderson is asking very important questions - I think - about making sure the #yegarena building doesn't just sit as a box surrounded by other hypothetical development. He is absolutely right - this building CAN'T sit dark and empty. It needs to be vital.
by Paula Simons 3:55 PM

Tim Romani of Icon, on the other hand, says the street revitalization will come from surrounding development. Henderson is most unhappy with this answer. Henderson says city council has made it clear from the beginning that bringing the building to life is part of the program. He's giving Romani quite a rough ride.
by Paula Simons 3:57 PM

Romani says coffee shops and retail aren't part of the arena. But wait - I, like Henderson, thought that they would be. Romani says there will be no retail podium.
by Paula Simons 3:58 PM

Don Iverson says it's silly to have one level of terrazzo floors and one level of concrete. He suggests making all the floors concrete, spending money on outside improvements instead.
by Paula Simons 4:02 PM

Gord is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 06:06 PM
  #118
Gord
Tesla
 
Gord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,765
vCash: 0
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...023/story.html

the link for the live tweets from silly hall

Gord is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 06:24 PM
  #119
April Ethereal
Eternal rains...
 
April Ethereal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord View Post
more from Paula simons at the meeting

My colleague Gordon Kent, who tracked the mayor to a scrum during a break, says the mayor has vowed not to build any more "crap" - his word, not mine.
by Paula Simons 3:55 PM

Henderson is asking very important questions - I think - about making sure the #yegarena building doesn't just sit as a box surrounded by other hypothetical development. He is absolutely right - this building CAN'T sit dark and empty. It needs to be vital.
by Paula Simons 3:55 PM

Tim Romani of Icon, on the other hand, says the street revitalization will come from surrounding development. Henderson is most unhappy with this answer. Henderson says city council has made it clear from the beginning that bringing the building to life is part of the program. He's giving Romani quite a rough ride.
by Paula Simons 3:57 PM

Romani says coffee shops and retail aren't part of the arena. But wait - I, like Henderson, thought that they would be. Romani says there will be no retail podium.
by Paula Simons 3:58 PM

Don Iverson says it's silly to have one level of terrazzo floors and one level of concrete. He suggests making all the floors concrete, spending money on outside improvements instead.
by Paula Simons 4:02 PM
This isn't going to end well at all.

April Ethereal is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 06:38 PM
  #120
Hockey Nightmare
Ex-hockey fan
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,307
vCash: 500
It sounds like they want a mega mall that just happens to have an arena attached. If they want something that is all things to all people, maybe they should put in an extra $300M and build the Ultimate Structure.


Last edited by Hockey Nightmare: 07-17-2012 at 07:21 PM.
Hockey Nightmare is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 06:46 PM
  #121
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
If it's that contentious maybe the best course of action is to delay the project 6 months by sending the desigenrs back to the drawing board with a slap on the wrists in order them to get it right.

They have a generous budget to work with so there is no reason to dummy down an over ambitious design.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 07:00 PM
  #122
SeriousBusiness
T.Hall da man
 
SeriousBusiness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
If it's that contentious maybe the best course of action is to delay the project 6 months by sending the desigenrs back to the drawing board with a slap on the wrists in order them to get it right.

They have a generous budget to work with so there is no reason to dummy down an over ambitious design.
The thing is, it's always going to be a contentious issue. They need to keep moving forward now or it will never be built.

SeriousBusiness is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 07:10 PM
  #123
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
Maybe it's just the wording but this doesn't add up to me.
I am not sure which calculations you are concerned about. And I should caution you that I did some of these in my head and ome by hand.

I used a 2.5% interest rate based on a 10 year bond rate of 2.17%. I also used a 40 year amortization but it might in fact be as low as 30. T 30 years this would increase the yearly amount by from $4.8M to $5.65M which would bump my range from $0-8 up to $0-9.6. (But all of this assumes not net tax gain from the whole project which is very very conservative.)

The City budget lists property tax revenues at $1.02B per year for this year. This means that a $4.8M increase is about a .47% bump in the total city property tax bill if the full hike was dumped on property taxes.

The City budget aslo states that a $357K valued house has a propert tax component of about $1750 or so a .47% rise is about $8.

Fourier is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 07:27 PM
  #124
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
It would take all day to rebut that so I'll say fair enough.

I was being somewhat flippant in retrospect in looking at in in terms of taxpayer cost. I'll be completely honest too. I'm speaking to an audience sometimes. As soon as you are the audience I have to be much more careful what I state here. I mean well with that.

Certainly I follow what you are saying and that whenever any mega project is accounted in general expenditure like that for a city of over 1M people it ends up looking like a drop in a bucket. But the city is on the hook for this and several other developments, proposed developments simultaneously(and yes also the interchange) and theres a lot of concerns in Edmonton about how much this City council is putting itself, and subsequent councils, in a compromised leveraged position. Which all seems to make sense in skies the limit boom times. But we've seen the hangovers here before. To wit one of the best examples being a World Class initial LRT start up, and then route to U of A that was so prohibitively expensive and poorly planned out that it precluded further expansion for decades.

I guess I have a couple horses in this game. Millwoods getting the LRT finally that was promised to this area as early as 1979(but that ultimately never occurred) and the Meadows recreational facility and Library. Both of which could still be compromised(as could get similar projects around the city) if the City finds itself in a very compromised financial picture. You would be more the expert on that kind of thing and I would leave that more for your consideration and analysis.

Finally, yes, my real reason in opposing this is more philosophical, which we've discussed before.
I actually am pretty sympathetic to the concern about competing projects. Interestingly enough, had people in the City not been so conservative wrt spending on the LRT the Millwoods line might well have been in place ages ago.

I have always felt that big projects get way too much relative scrutiny and that the silent killers are the literally thousands of smaller wasteful expeditures that go completely unnoticed and which tend not to really add anything to the quality of life of a city. Too often not doing something until it is absolutely needed results in significant additional costs and into a tendancy to cut corners. The latter often comes back to bite as well.

Personally, I think that multi-use arenas are projects that do impact a large range of individuals in a very positive way. In this case, in a city the size of Edmonton I also think that they are very good bang for the buck.


Last edited by Fourier: 07-18-2012 at 08:05 AM.
Fourier is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 08:08 PM
  #125
Philly85
Moody'
 
Philly85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
Actually I was not trying to be confrontational though from the haste I put together my previous post it may well have sounded that way.

I'll respond to some of the specifics of your post and then I will say a little more about why I posed the questions I did.

First as to the public fronting the whole thing that is really not surprising. The $100M that Katz is on the hook for is being borrowed by the City. But the contract attributes the full cost of this amount including all interest charges directly to Katz. As you know they are doing this because the City can borrow through the Province at a rate that is far lower than Katz would be able to get. Moreover, because the City will actually have 100% ownership of the building, financing $100M for an asset you won't actually own is not as easy as it sounds. So really what we are talking about as far as money out of a tax payer's pocket is semantics unless you believe that the Katz Group will go bankrupt. (Did anyone ever really beleive that he would put down $100M up front?)

The additional $125M that is going to be funded by the ticket tax is at very little risk to the tax payer. Even at current ticket prices revenues to pay off this portion of the debt would easily cover this commitment. As inflation kicks in I would expect this amount to be paid off much earlier than the rest of the building. In any case, unless you believe that the arena will not be used it is difficult to imagine that there is any risk to the tax payer on this one.

That leaves the $225M that will come from the public purse in some form or the other. As I said the Province will figure out a way to kick in the $100M as some sort of infrastructure grant. It is legitimate to debate whether this is a reasonable use of such funding. But it is true that the cost of this investment to the Province on a yearly basis would be less than the income taxes the Province receives from the Oiler players alone. They would also likely get back a fair bit from the taxes associated with the actual building of the arena itself and the ancillary development. In any case, there is no risk specifically to Edmonton property tax payers here.

You are left with a grand total of $125M that is squarely on the shoulders of the Edmonton tax payer. At the Province's borrowing rate the cost to the tax payers to retire this debt would be about $4.8M per year. Now the plan is to cover this from additional revenues associated with the development around the arena. It is hard to say how much the additional taxes would generate in real new money. But even if the answer is 0 you are looking at an additional .475% on top of the current taxes if this was to be funded completely by a tax hike.

By the City's own figures a typical $357K property would see a one time tax increase of about $8 to cover this portion of the building.

It is my understanding that contractually cost over runs will be the responsibility of the builder. So if this is true one might be able to make a case that the typical taxpayer in Edmonton is at risk of seeing their taxes go up by somewhere between $0-8 per year to fund this project. And in reality most of this will not appear as an actual increase on their current taxes, but rather will come from te diversion of future revenues.

Now I did not include costs of things like the LRT or parking because the LRT station was already planned and would have happened anyway, and the parking that is event specific is already built into the cost of the arena. In fact one of the stated reasons why the initial cost estimate was on the rise was the decision to move parking underground. Additional parking and infrastructure charges would have eventually resulted from development of the area no matter what triggered it.

You can add in the Winter Garden if you like. It won't change the real cost to the tax payers by much. Maybe another $1 per year at most. It is also my understanding that Katz is on the hook for most of this cost, separate from the $100M he will pay for the arena.

I brought up the interchange only because it is a piece of infrastructure that costs roughly what the the combined provincial and municipal contribution to the arena would be. And since I come to the City about 5 times a year, I have passed through that area many times before construction and more recently after construction. I don't really want to debate with you the merits of one type of infra structure vs another other than to say that while it is certainly true that the exchange needed to be improved because of general growth of the population, I also think that a good part of the motivation for the design and the urgency to build it related directly to the commercial development at South Edmonton Commons.

Personally I don't have a problem with the fact that privately held companies will benefit from such an investment (even though I am pretty left leaning myself) because like it or not it is really a necessary part of doing business in a city the size of Edmonton. I think the same can be said of an arena, which despite the money that may float to Katz, I also view as an important piece of the infrastructure of the city. I know that you and others may disagree with the latter assessment, I guess to varying degrees. I am not going to change anyone's mind in this regard.

Now to the real point of my previous post. No matter how one comes down on the appropriateness of giving public funds to an arena I still think it is important to acknowledge the real cost of a project like this to the average tax payer. No matter how you slice and dice it that number is so small that virtually no one would really notice. This is where I think that the vast majority of people are misinformed.

I have no problem with people being philosophically against any such expenditure. Unfortuantely, I honestly believe that most of the opposition to a project like this comes because people hear large numbers like $250M and automatically assume that such an expediture will hit them significantly in their own pocket or severely impact the services they receive. I really wonder if most people would be so upset if they new that the risk to there own pocket book might top out at $10 per year per household and that the actual cost might be less than half of that.
Someone give that man a medal. POTY.

Philly85 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 10:59 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.