2/25 News

AreliusIII · 02-25-2006, 02:02 PM

Real claims poll finds public favors tax plan
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3545618

prk166 · 02-25-2006, 03:28 PM

Ya! Let the naysayers put out there case in detail. Then over time just come back bit by bit chipping away at it. Good approach. Don't engage them in a debate. Just leave the general public feeling like there are more reasons to go forward with it than against it. And I'm not being sarcastic. I like it. This is really what politics are about.

Burninator · 02-25-2006, 06:04 PM

The misinformation is being countered. People are finally seeing what's really going on here, and now that they can see the stadium for what it is, they're going to support it.

:rei: Geoff
---------------
REGULATORS! Mount up!

Section 37 · 02-26-2006, 12:50 AM

It's not really misinformation. There are two groups of people upset about the stadium. One group is upset because they feel it will be a poor use of money. They have their reasons, none of them are stupid and they certainly aren't misinformation.

The other group is upset for another reason. I present the "other" news from the today conveniently left off this thread.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635187489,00.html

As you can see, the stadium debate is no longer about sound investment. The County is completely freaked out by the actions of the legislature and feels very threatened and uneasy. We don't even need to talk about how SLC feels having its money taken under false pretense, then being the victims of malicious laws that are immediately rescinded once Sandy is the location.

Many, many, many people are nervous about what this stadium means not only financially, but also politically. As a lifelong political observer and participant, I can say this is an EXTREMELY bad precedent.

It's NOT misinformation and it's doing everyone a disservice to dismiss real and very important concerns.

RSL has played a political hand, and now has to deal with that. Sorry.

realPDX · 02-26-2006, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section 37

It's not really misinformation. There are two groups of people upset about the stadium. One group is upset because they feel it will be a poor use of money. They have their reasons, none of them are stupid and they certainly aren't misinformation.

The other group is upset for another reason. I present the "other" news from the today conveniently left off this thread.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635187489,00.html

As you can see, the stadium debate is no longer about sound investment. The County is completely freaked out by the actions of the legislature and feels very threatened and uneasy. We don't even need to talk about how SLC feels having its money taken under false pretense, then being the victims of malicious laws that are immediately rescinded once Sandy is the location.

Many, many, many people are nervous about what this stadium means not only financially, but also politically. As a lifelong political observer and participant, I can say this is an EXTREMELY bad precedent.

It's NOT misinformation and it's doing everyone a disservice to dismiss real and very important concerns.

RSL has played a political hand, and now has to deal with that. Sorry.

before i can continue ANY question and/or counter point to what you have said, i must ask, are you FOR or AGAINST the stadium being built in Sandy? My question has to deal with personal questions of whether you want the stadium built IN Sandy or somewhere else.

I only question because you sound legitametly against, or not opiniated, about the stadium deal. NO MATTER WHAT, i am complete for the deal, whether the stadium is built in SLC, Sandy, West Valley, or no mans land. This stadium helps RSL no matter where it is built and I support RSL with everything I have. I support soccer in Utah and will gladly pay a small hotel tax when/if i come and visit. People in Utah really have NO idea what life is like outside their small valley/city. They have it easy in small taxes and bills. I live in Oregon and it is becoming increasingly more expensive to live here, and I am in college. I lived in utah for 18 years, now i realize how ignorant and close minded many of the people of utah are. utah NEEDS to pass this bill and build this stadium. Not only will it help RSL, but it will help the state of utah. people in utah have it so much easier/cheaper. they need to realize this and go forth with building the stadium. life could be much worse and if they would just see both sides of the argument than this bill would pass with little resistance. Utah is a great state to live in because of its low taxes and greater viability to live in. Its not like many other states where just getting by is the way of life. you can live comfortably in utah where living the same lifestyle anywhere else would be barely surviving. people need to use this to support RSL instead of living close minded lives where they think that paying for a stadium like this is outragous. Life could be so much harder for them and they could be facing the same issues. Please just pass this bill, mainly for the fact that it benefits RSL greatly and I will continue to support RSL with everything I have because I love soccer and having a MLS team in your hometown team is something many people could only wish for. I want nothing more than for MLS to succeed and do well, Soccer is something this country needs to adopt and accept as just a more entertaining sport for the public. Much of this country lacks the passion for any given sport and soccer is something that the public could really grab on to and "love." the rest of the world has proven this, yet america grasps on to sports like baseball which are extremely boring and long. hopefully someday soccer will take a greater hold of this country.

ps: im pretty drunk, i hope this post is not just a bunch of incoherant sentences. im sick of people who dont support the stadium project for any reason. the stadium complex will benefit RSL and that should be enough reason to support it. anything that great benefits this franchise and its existence should be completely supported whole heartedly by its fans.

Section 37 · 02-26-2006, 10:20 AM

Hey, I have always supported building a stadium. I think it's a wise use of money. We should have used RDA money from the start. That would have been the best thing. I have always thought the stadium is a good use of public funds.

The project is not just about money, though. I cannot support the stadium project in its current state because it is a very disturbing political precedent.

Last year the (Republican) legislature passed a law banning the use of RDA funds for sports projects when (Democrat) SLC was on the verge of purchasing land for the RSL stadium. This year when (Republican) Sandy is on the verge of a deal, the (Republican) legislature changed the law to once again allow (Republican) Sandy to do what (Democrat) SLC was not allowed to do: use RDA money for sports projects.

Now (Democrat led) Salt Lake County is being forced to use its share of the new tax money for the stadium. None of the other counties (Republican) are being forced this way. They all have free hands. Salt Lake County's (Democrat) leadership will be forced to grovel before the (Republican) legislature for new tourism projects because the (Republican) legislature gave all of the (Democrat) County's tourism money to (Republican) Sandy.

Aerick · 02-26-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section 37

Hey, I have always supported building a stadium. I think it's a wise use of money. We should have used RDA money from the start. That would have been the best thing. I have always thought the stadium is a good use of public funds.

The project is not just about money, though. I cannot support the stadium project in its current state because it is a very disturbing political precedent.

Last year the (Republican) legislature passed a law banning the use of RDA funds for sports projects when (Democrat) SLC was on the verge of purchasing land for the RSL stadium. This year when (Republican) Sandy is on the verge of a deal, the (Republican) legislature changed the law to once again allow (Republican) Sandy to do what (Democrat) SLC was not allowed to do: use RDA money for sports projects.

Now (Democrat led) Salt Lake County is being forced to use its share of the new tax money for the stadium. None of the other counties (Republican) are being forced this way. They all have free hands. Salt Lake County's (Democrat) leadership will be forced to grovel before the (Republican) legislature for new tourism projects because the (Republican) legislature gave all of the (Democrat) County's tourism money to (Republican) Sandy.

OK. Full disclosure time. Are you both of the following:

1) Democrat or "left" leaning?
2) Opposed to the Sandy location for any reason other than the politics and funding issues?

I'm "right" leaning, and love the Sandy location because I live here. Therefore, I tend to find myself arguing in favor of the current setup. In my mind, there would have only been a few pros for having the stadium downtown versus Sandy, and for me, that has nothing to do with politics. Once I was able to decide which location was best, it wasn't hard to support the current arrangements and politics. It's not hard to find negatives or positives when your really looking for them, and it's not hard to turn a blind eye to an oppositions valid points if you really want to.

The bottom line for me is this. RSL NEEDS their own stadium (not a refurbished Rice-Eccles). The Sandy site is the best site for the team (whatever your reasons for this are, you can decide). I support RSL. Therefore, I need to back the team on their decision for this site. We (and the politicians) could debate the methods and issues ad nauseum, but it's only going to stall the process and hurt RSL. Therefore, as long as nothing illegal occurs, I will continue to support RSL, it's decisions, and the politicians helping the process along.

utah_heretic · 02-26-2006, 05:44 PM

so basically, you're saying the ends justify the means, no matter who get's screwed in the deal right?

I want the stadium too, but I won't close my eyes and pretend I don't see what's going on...most of the hotels in SL County are in fact in SLC, not Sandy...not that there won't be hotels built in Sandy. Saying that the hotel tax only affects tourists is a radical oversimplification. Ultimately, SLC hotels will bear a big chunk of the cost for the stadium which they would have benefitted from, had it been built in SLC (If SLC hotels thought that the market would bear the added cost of the tax, then that is the price they would charge for a room.) I love the sense of irony in this...Let's not let SLC use public funds to build a stadium, subsequently decide it's something that Sandy can do, and to throw in a kicker, SLC businesses can contribute the lions share.

This deal isn't done just yet...SLC will turn this into political capital because it can put the kibosh on the stadium deal in Sandy. The stadium will be built in Sandy, but SLC is going to own some major bargaining chips in the process. I wonder what Sandy republicans are willing to offer.

Aerick · 02-27-2006, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by utah_heretic

so basically, you're saying the ends justify the means, no matter who get's screwed in the deal right?

I want the stadium too, but I won't close my eyes and pretend I don't see what's going on...most of the hotels in SL County are in fact in SLC, not Sandy...not that there won't be hotels built in Sandy. Saying that the hotel tax only affects tourists is a radical oversimplification. Ultimately, SLC hotels will bear a big chunk of the cost for the stadium which they would have benefitted from, had it been built in SLC (If SLC hotels thought that the market would bear the added cost of the tax, then that is the price they would charge for a room.) I love the sense of irony in this...Let's not let SLC use public funds to build a stadium, subsequently decide it's something that Sandy can do, and to throw in a kicker, SLC businesses can contribute the lions share.

This deal isn't done just yet...SLC will turn this into political capital because it can put the kibosh on the stadium deal in Sandy. The stadium will be built in Sandy, but SLC is going to own some major bargaining chips in the process. I wonder what Sandy republicans are willing to offer.

Unfortunately, there is no way we can have a deal that everyone in Utah will approve of. It's just not possible! Therefore, someone will inevitibly feel that they are "getting screwed". That's why I'm not worried about trying to accommodate everyone.

In a perfect world, soccer in the US would be at such a level that finding private funding for $145 million would be as easy as the Chivas' Girls, but it's definitely not the case yet. We're in a "catch 22 here". If you build a stadium with private funds, it will be the most popular method. But you can't privately fund it until it becomes more popular.

Now, you may say, "Only use the $100 million you've already got funding for and forget about the $45 million. That'll build a nice facility, and everyone's happy." Somehow, I don't think it's that easy. I'm betting the $100 million is based on the scope of a $145 million project, not on a $100 million project. You scope down the project, you scope down your funding, and maybe even lose it. We're not privy to that information, and may never be.

utah_heretic · 02-27-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerick

Unfortunately, there is no way we can have a deal that everyone in Utah will approve of. It's just not possible! Therefore, someone will inevitibly feel that they are "getting screwed". That's why I'm not worried about trying to accommodate everyone.

In a perfect world, soccer in the US would be at such a level that finding private funding for $145 million would be as easy as the Chivas' Girls, but it's definitely not the case yet. We're in a "catch 22 here". If you build a stadium with private funds, it will be the most popular method. But you can't privately fund it until it becomes more popular.

Now, you may say, "Only use the $100 million you've already got funding for and forget about the $45 million. That'll build a nice facility, and everyone's happy." Somehow, I don't think it's that easy. I'm betting the $100 million is based on the scope of a $145 million project, not on a $100 million project. You scope down the project, you scope down your funding, and maybe even lose it. We're not privy to that information, and may never be.

I'm not sure what you are responding to. I didn't say that I thought the stadium should or would be entirely publicly funded. In point of fact, it is far more reasonable to ask local government to purchase the land because it has an advantage in negotiating the price of land that RSL does not have. After all, they can use immenent domain to acquire it...it simplifies things dramatically for RSL.

I certainly didn't suggest that they should fund the stadium out of the current $100m they have "committed to the project." As to funding the project in a way that all impacted parties will pay and share equitably, I not only expect that, but we ought to demand it. SLC was certainly willing to buy land for the stadium with $45 mil worth of public funding. But then that was when downtown businesses would be positively impacted by the influx of people. The particular mechanism that is being put forward may well be the ultimate solution, but I seriously doubt that SLC will be willing to forgo their current legitimate bargaining position without some kind of negotiated compensation. I was merely pointing out that we haven't seen the rabbit yet.