3/2 News

[Section 37]

Originally Posted by Aero

In fact, I believe that Corroon said it wouldn't get done without the soccer fields for youth soccer. .

The Mayor said the project had to help youth soccer. That can be inerpreted in many ways. There are lost of soccer fields across the county. The absence of youth fields at the stadium will not break youth soccer.

Plus, Corroon created that laundry list as a response to sinking so much money into the project. A cheaper project would bring less of a laundry list because the County would have money to accomplish goals outside of what they can piggyback onto the "soccer city".

[Aero]

Originally Posted by Section 37

But it's not really the county's money. The legislature made it very clear to the County leaders that there would be dire political consequences if they tried to use that money for something other than the Stadium.

How would that change if it were going downtown? It's okay if the money is used like this downtown, but not in Sandy?

The County is extremely nervous about the project because it threatens their bond rating, it sinks their tourism money into a non- tourist project and they are basically being blackmailed.

If they hadn't extended the tax which was set to stop, there wouldn't have been any money to spend in the first place. This isn't money that was already there and then suddenly shifted to a different purpose. This money was specifically created to help fund the stadium. No stadium, no money. They haven't lost a single thing that they had before.

I'm pretty sure a deal will be worked out that doesn't jeopardize their bond rating in the end.

Besides, if you look at the proposal, the stadium only gets at most half of the money and that isn't for several years in the future too. They still have the other half to spend on tourism that they wouldn't have had before. Not only do they get "Soccer City" but they have a lot of other money to spend that they wouldn't have had before. Without the stadium, that wouldn't have happened because as you suggested earlier this money was all about the stadium.

So, I guess if you can call forcing someone to spend money in a certain way that is given to them that they didn't have in the first place blackmail, then the county is being blackmailed. If I give someone $5 but stipulate that the only way I'll give it to him is if he buys food with it, am I blackmailing him?

You also keep failing to address the point that the county gets way more for its money in Sandy than they do downtown.

[Aero]

Originally Posted by Section 37

So, for $40 million they have two blocks of land downtown where for the same $40 million in Sandy, they get to improve an area that needs it, they get all kinds of fields for youth soccer, they get a new hotel, a new shopping district, multi-use parking, and a soccer stadium.

You forget to mention the upgraded roads in the area, the new freeway exit at 9400 south and trax stop... that is being paid for by the tax money as well.

[beaveman]

RSL midfielder Douglas Sequeira and Costa Rica fall 3-2 to Iran
Sequeira played a full 90 minutes in Costa Rica's third friendly of 2006; Klein adds 22nd cap in U.S. MNT's 1-0 win over Poland today

http://real.saltlake.mlsnet.com/MLS/news/team_news.jsp?ymd=20060302&content_id=53015&vkey=pr_rsl&fext=.jsp&team=rsl

[Section 37]

Originally Posted by Aero

How would that change if it were going downtown? It's okay if the money is used like this downtown, but not in Sandy?

My argument is it will be a cheaper project, and more directly benefit the businesses downtown that are footing the bill.

Originally Posted by Aero

If they hadn't extended the tax which was set to stop, there wouldn't have been any money to spend in the first place. This isn't money that was already there and then suddenly shifted to a different purpose. This money was specifically created to help fund the stadium. No stadium, no money. They haven't lost a single thing that they had before.

Actually, this bill has been tossed around for years now as a mechanism for rural counties to come up with some tourism funding. The rural reps. were the ones who really boosted the project. They all get unrestricted use of their funds.

SLCo is the only county heavily restricted in their use of the funds.

Originally Posted by Aero

If I give someone $5 but stipulate that the only way I'll give it to him is if he buys food with it, am I blackmailing him?

No, but that's not what's happening here. Legally, that money belongs to the County. The legislature may not stipulate its use. That is illegal. On the side, however, it has been made very clear to the County leadership of the dire consequences of not cutting a check to Dolan & co.

Asking politely to use the money on the stadium is not blackmail. Threatening bad consequences unless the County complies is blackmail.

Originally Posted by Aero

You also keep failing to address the point that the county gets way more for its money in Sandy than they do downtown.

That depends on your view of the County. I have a different view of neighborhoos, planning, and development than Dolan, Horiuchi, and Curtis.

I don't believe the County will be a better place by putting the Stadium in Sandy.

[Dadof3]

Originally Posted by Section 37

The County is extremely nervous about the project because it threatens their bond rating,

True

Originally Posted by Section 37

it sinks their tourism money into a non- tourist project

How is the stadium not a tourist project...won't there be games that appeal to those from outside the state (US nats)...won't the image of the area be improved by this beautiful stadium being shown on the national stage?

Originally Posted by Section 37

they are basically being blackmailed.

NO question about it...

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by Aero

You forget to mention the upgraded roads in the area, the new freeway exit at 9400 south and trax stop... that is being paid for by the tax money as well.

Damn it some time i don't pay attention to what I am doing... sorry! I hit edit instead of quote... :censored:

Aero do you have your original post for post #43?

Sorry folks....

[Aero]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Damn it some time i don't pay attention to what I am doing... sorry! I hit edit instead of quote... :censored:

Aero do you have your original post for post #43?

Sorry folks....

No, and that was a good one. Thanks a lot. You ARE THE GREATEST!

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by Aero

No, and that was a good one. Thanks a lot. You ARE THE GREATEST!

oops did it again! 😉


🕺

[Aero]

Originally Posted by Section 37

My argument is it will be a cheaper project, and more directly benefit the businesses downtown that are footing the bill.

Actually, it might not be cheaper and they might not end up getting nearly as much for their money.

Where are people going to park downtown? They'll need some more land for a parking structure that will not be used much when the stadium isn't being used. You can factor in at least $10 million more just to buy a half-block of land for that. Unless you feel that the parking facilities downtown are already adequate for handling stadium parking.

Actually, this bill has been tossed around for years now as a mechanism for rural counties to come up with some tourism funding. The rural reps. were the ones who really boosted the project. They all get unrestricted use of their funds.

SLCo is the only county heavily restricted in their use of the funds.

They aren't even restricted in using half of the funds. At no point does the stadium ever require more than 50% of the money. How is even when it is at its worst at 50% heavily restricted?

Legally, that money belongs to the County. The legislature may not stipulate its use. That is illegal. On the side, however, it has been made very clear to the County leadership of the dire consequences of not cutting a check to Dolan & co.

If they hadn't agreed to it, the money would have all probably disappeared. I think it is better to have half of something than a whole nothing.

Asking politely to use the money on the stadium is not blackmail. Threatening bad consequences unless the County complies is blackmail.

You keep saying this, but you'll have to do more than constantly imply that there was a threat. I backed up my claim that inflation was a significant factor, now it's your turn to back up your claim that they are being blackmailed and threatened.

That depends on your view of the County. I have a different view of neighborhoos, planning, and development than Dolan, Horiuchi, and Curtis.

Of course you do because you want the stadium downtown and that is your primary concern in all of this. Unfortunately, when you take the big picture into account instead of just bits and pieces, Sandy makes way more sense for everyone. Uncle Dave wanted it downtown as badly as anyone. If it made any kind of sense at all, that's where it would be going, but he has realized that Sandy is just better all the way around. The only thing downtown had going for it was the coolness factor and that's just not enough to override all of the other negatives about downtown.

I don't believe the County will be a better place by putting the Stadium in Sandy.

Obviously. Your prime consideration here is that you personally want a stadium downtown instead of in Sandy though. A lot of other people, that are smarter and privy to more details than both of us, disagree with you. The county gets the best use of its money by going to Sandy. I'm not sure how anyone can even begin to argue against that fact. What does the county get that it doesn't get in Sandy if the stadium goes downtown? I can come up with a long list of things it gets if it goes in Sandy instead of downtown.