Thursday, June 22, 2006

Hell No

As an ardent RSL fan and soccer supporter, I've been asked to lobby the Salt Lake County Council in favor of Sandy City's plan for my team. While I support RSL with my time and a good amount of my money, I cannot support what is going on right now. It's true, I own three RSL jerseys, but I also have my self- respect.

26 Comments:

Anonymous Justin said...

But what we really want to know is, do you have any extra tickets to the Real Madrid match?

6/23/2006 08:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stenar mentioned that there wouldn't be more public funding on the Fairpark deal. Is he smoking glue?

Rocky proposes cutting the amount of hotel tax but Stenar forgets to mention the cost of the ground (public financing) and as the Trib states Salt Lake City also would create a tax-increment Community Development Area to improve the grounds then funnel a portion of the extra property and sales taxes to the team.

SLC deal reads more public money. Everyone is starting to show there true colors on this one. It isn't actually public financing but rather the arrogance of Salt Lake City citizens.

6/23/2006 11:32:00 AM  
Blogger Stenar said...

Even before we learned of all the dirty, underhanded means the politicians in Sandy used to get RSL to select their site, I didn't think Sandy was the best location for the stadium.

Downtown or at the very least Murray were the best choices.

In Sandy, there are no convenient hotels, no parking, no nightlife (sorry but Jordan Commons doesn't count), no decent restaurants, no decent shopping, and it's far away from the airport.

The Fairpark is an excellent location minutes from both the airport and downtown with plentiful parking.

Your whole argument about SLC's plan requiring more public funding is a canard.

First of all, the land is just sitting there doing nothing. It's not like they have to spend millions to buy it from someone. It belongs to the state.

Second, the land is sitting there doing nothing to provide economic activity for the city or state. By developing the site, you're raising the value and bringing in more NEW taxes than letting it sit there vacant. Not to mention the state has to PAY to maintain the Fairpark, which some of those costs will probably be offset by the stadium.

This is all new money that would not be in the tax coffers anyway without the development.

So, overall, it does not require any more tax dollars than the Sandy deal. Probably less. No need to build a parking garage, no need to buy land (Yah RSL has already bought the land, but they can probably sell it at a profit in today's real estate climate), no need to build hotels nearby, etc., etc.

6/23/2006 02:00:00 PM  
Blogger CapitalCarnage said...

My guess is hotel tax revenues will be off the table completely if the fairpark is chosen.

6/23/2006 02:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stenar--

What do you think the land in Sandy is doing - making millions?? There is even less current utility on the Sandy land.

If you want to pitch SLC, I don't have a problem with that. But you've complained about the public financing before in Sandy but now you don't seem to care about that now that it could be in SLC. All of a sudden you are advocating using state dollars to pay for a stadium.

RSL, a private entity, has already purchased land. They are not asking for state money but rather hotel/restaurant tax money to pay for infrastructure.

Finally, the demographics in Salt Lake County are changing. Already half the population lives south of 7200 South (not to mention the quickly growing and changing Utah County - the 2nd biggest county). Everything does not happen in downtown SLC.

6/23/2006 04:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They say that they are not using our tax money and that the hotel tax is someone elses burden. That might be true for now, but in the end taxes will be raised. Here is why.

Hotel tax dollars are going to be tied up in the stadium deal for a long time. The next project that comes up which requires hotel taxes will not have the funds available. To compensate we will then be taxed to support a project that the hotel tax should be paying for. Why? Because multi-millionares, political assholes, and mormon college buddies (Dolan and Howes and others) are all sleeping with each other. (They didn't go to the same college, but you get what I mean)

I own season tickets and am a huge fan of soccers so don't come at me with any of that crap. I have never supported public funding for any sort of stadium. The E Center is a disaster and my immediate family of 9 is double the attendance that Franklin Covey brings in. If they want it they can pay for it. Build it downtown and they might see some good return.

6/23/2006 04:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take a look at Philadelphia they have the right idea. Eagles, Phillies, and 76ers are all on the same block. It is awesome. Centralize it.

6/23/2006 04:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is the E Center a disaster?

Boy that Delta Center sure didn't work out??? They used the exact same blueprint RSL is using. Public money helps pay for the infrastructure (sewer, etc.) - private entity builds the stadium and others come to build near it because stadiums are great anchors.

Franklin Covey proves my point. It's built in SLC but in a terrible location a la the Fairpark. The Sandy site will be located next to the Expo Center (hugely successful) and Jordan Commons (most used theatre in Utah) and has enormous commercial potential.

6/23/2006 08:20:00 PM  
Blogger Ethan said...

E center is not a good example. That intersection would have the same development without the E center. Look at its location. That intersection is a great place to locate businesses.

If anything, E center gets in the way of other, better things that could be in its place.

6/23/2006 10:27:00 PM  
Blogger Stenar said...

No, the Sandy land isn't currently providing economic revenue for Sandy, but then Sandy hasn't been willing to put in any of its own tax dollars to pay for the stadium, either. They want everyone else's money.

I haven't heard of any proposals whereby Sandy is diverting future property taxes to pay for the stadium. Nor requiring RSL to pay back the hotel taxes as Rocky's plan does. And this new plan requires HALF of the upfront hotel taxes that the Sandy site does.

Not to mention Sandy politicians were dirty and underhanded in the way they got their site selected.

I'm all for public funding for the stadium if the money to pay for it comes from Sandy City. The majority of the hotels paying the hotel tax are in downtown. What, there are like 1 or 2 hotels in all of Sandy?

6/24/2006 06:59:00 AM  
Blogger CapitalCarnage said...

As I said earlier on carnage if any site other than the Sandy site is picked the hotel tax will be removed and the whole deal killed. Rice Eccles will be home to Real as long as they stay in SLC.

6/24/2006 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Stenar said...

If it's the only way to keep RSL in Utah, then the hotel taxes will be used for whichever site ends up on top.

6/24/2006 11:54:00 AM  
Blogger CapitalCarnage said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6/24/2006 12:06:00 PM  
Blogger Stenar said...

I know how to spell legislature.

6/24/2006 04:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stenar--

First, The TRCC fund is the county funding source for the RSL stadium. TRCC is much more than just hotels. It also includes restaurants, and Sandy is the second largest contributor to this fund. Where does the majority of this money go - SLC.

Second, Sandy is fronting a huge amount of the costs. Sandy's proposed fronting the bond and taking the risk.

Finally. Chayce. Settle down.

6/24/2006 09:10:00 PM  
Blogger Stenar said...

From everything I've read, the stadium funding would come from the TRT (Transient Room Tax) not the TRCC (which comes from restaurants and rental cars). I'm sure Sandy's share of the TRCC was spent on that tacky expo center.

6/24/2006 09:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ANONYMOUS -- The county's TRCC funds are currently tied up in the Salt Palace, along with hotel taxes for quite a few years.

6/24/2006 10:19:00 PM  
Blogger CapitalCarnage said...

Or use the spell check either way you are leaps and bounds ahead of me.
Secondly, it is the TRT tax that will be used for the stadium, as the scripps champion Stenar pointed out. In the TRT extension, the law passed this session that removed the sunset provision on the TRT tax, there is a place to remove the tax revenue from Class 1 counties. SLCo is the only Class 1 county in the state of Utah .

6/24/2006 10:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both wrong. Sandy is asking the County to use TRCC funds (TRT are a major component of the TRCC as you have pointed out).

Just because the media reports it wrong doesn't make it right. Sandy is the 2nd largest contributor and the majority of the funds already flow to SLC.

BTW, since when was it acceptable to to subsidize the symphony and arts but not other forms of entertainment such as soccer?

6/25/2006 02:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do you know what Sandy is asking for? Nobody has seen their plan, not even Real execs. According to the team's initial plan, they wanted anywhere from $35-$41 million in TRT funds. Corroon insists $41 million is the cap in total public funding he is willing to consider. TRCC funds are tied up in the Salt Palace.

6/25/2006 03:23:00 PM  
Blogger CapitalCarnage said...

The Tourism, Recreational, Cultural, Convention Facilities Tax is being used to fund the Salt Palace. Correct. This is composed mostly of Restaurant taxes, and a large part of them come from Sandy. The bill ran this session increased the TRT, a part of the TRCC you are correct, from 3% to 4.5% and removed the sunset provision. Sandy wants to use this portion, increase in the TRT, to fund the stadium or finance the stadium and use the new revenue after the Salt Palace is paid for to combat the increased cost of several years of interest. I think that they will eventually have to use restaurant tax but they want hotels to pay for the stadium in the short run. Mayor Dolan would be happy if he could use his restaurant tax to pay for the stadium and let SLC use the increased TRT to pay for the Salt Palace but that would create an immediate shortfall that Mayor Corroon couldn‘t cover. I wouldn’t be surprised if the House tries to shift the Restaurant money next session but right now they want to fund the stadium with the new TRT portion of the TRCC. This makes sense in my head but obviously like most things I think, that is the only place it makes sense.

6/25/2006 10:33:00 PM  
Blogger theorris said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6/26/2006 09:52:00 AM  
Blogger theorris said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6/26/2006 09:53:00 AM  
Blogger theorris said...

"BTW, since when was it acceptable to to subsidize the symphony and arts but not other forms of entertainment such as soccer?"

That's a good question, and one might presume a snobby answer to come forthwith, but it is simply because in our day said arts can't and don't make money like sports can, at least not in our locale. Now, of course, someone will probably make the "well they shouldn't be in business" or "let the market decide for arts" argument, but would you really want to live in a world where the only graphic art you have is billboards, the only music you have is radio top 40, et cetera?

In any case, I don't think there is a problem with using public funds to put up a stadium as long as the funding institution gets a cut of the profits that the subsidized organization draws in, but that just means I'm an idiot who doesn't believe that the market is the be all and end all of life.

6/26/2006 09:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theorris--

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I wanted to provoke some thought on this issue.

I'm not opposed to funding for the arts but I'm also not opposed to funding for stadium infrastructure a la RSL. The are both quality of life issues for me.

I would want a good opera, symphony and theatre as well as MLB and soccer if I could.

Thanks again for your comments Theorris.

6/26/2006 12:03:00 PM  
Blogger CapitalCarnage said...

I agree. The arts do create positive externalities. Although I think an Adam Smith style policy would still leave plenty of demand for the arts.

6/26/2006 08:16:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home