We have got to behave

[the cup]

Originally Posted by Aero

Especially after we show him how passionate we are about soccer by filling up RES this summer.

We should send him an invitation to come stand in the Blood Gutter with us for the home opener. Seeing what a real game is like may make him realize he has made a mistake.

[Aero]

Originally Posted by WorldBall

Many people move in, but because of the tax breaks given essential services such as eductation, roads, etc do not have the resources that they need. Before the big box there was equilibrium. After the tax breaks and big boxes quality of life actually goes down as there are more people and needs than there were before.

One other thing I thought I might point out about this particular scenario, especially as it applies to our particular interests, is that this does not always happen for every use of RDA funds. Sure it happens when a big company moves into town bringing thousands of jobs with it. But when Wal-Mart opens a new store, there aren't a bunch of people moving into the area to overcrowd it.

The same thing applies to sports stadium. They don't really have that many people moving into the area because of them. So, I think that for the most part, even this argument doesn't really apply to our soccer stadium. The only thing that a stadium might do is increase traffic on roads not prepared to handle it. But that can be planned for and managed much easier than having people flood an area without adequate resources.

Given all of that, there really is no good reason not to use RDA funds for a stadium. Now we just have to convince everyone else of that. That's the hard part.

[bordelais7]

The Utah Taxpayers Association (bless their poor misguided hearts) response to that is that a stadium might produce revenue and therefore tax revenue, but in the end it's just stealing that revenue from other entertainment sources. In other words, that $20 that Joe Blow spent on the ticket for the game would have been spent somewhere else anyway, so there is a net gain of zero. If you listen to the anti-RDA propoganda, you'll hear this over and over and over again. "Zero-sum this", and "Disposable income ceiling that", etc.

There is some truth to that concept, but we don't live in an absolute economic vaccuum where we have already capped out on spending our entire disposible income. There are diminishing returns on stadiums and retail and such, and that's important to acknowledge, but it CERTAINLY isn't restricted to having zero effect on an economy.

[Rover]

Originally Posted by bordelais7

The Utah Taxpayers Association (bless their poor misguided hearts) response to that is that a stadium might produce revenue and therefore tax revenue, but in the end it's just stealing that revenue from other entertainment sources. In other words, that $20 that Joe Blow spent on the ticket for the game would have been spent somewhere else anyway, so there is a net gain of zero. If you listen to the anti-RDA propoganda, you'll hear this over and over and over again. "Zero-sum this", and "Disposable income ceiling that", etc.

There is some truth to that concept, but we don't live in an absolute economic vaccuum where we have already capped out on spending our entire disposible income. There are diminishing returns on stadiums and retail and such, and that's important to acknowledge, but it CERTAINLY isn't restricted to having zero effect on an economy.

They're citing the "subsitution effect," and it's entry #1 in the stadium opponent playbook. It even sounds plausible, which is why they use it.

But it is not a good predictive model. Of course, if we had good economic prediction models we'd never have booms and busts.

In short, the substition effect only partially takes into account the many variables that go into spending choices. For instance, a family might just go to the game. Or they might make a day of it--eat out, visit a museum, catch a show--and then go to the game. It's quite possible that none of that spending would have taken place if they hadn't gone to the game. And if they were coming to Salt Lake from, say, Provo, then it's all gain. Except for Provo. Which may explain Bramble.

[Rocky J Squirrel]

Senator Bramble has become the target, but is he the real enemy? Every politician has his campaign doners and Lobbyist friends. KSL/Deseret Morning News did a report a couple of weeks ago, I wonder what the correlation is between an anti-RDA position and a legislators funding?

The weirdest alliance ever, got together to put together the RDA limitation bill: UTA Utah Taxpayers Association otherwise known as the Universal Tax Againsters and the UEA the Teachers Union Known publically as the Utah Education Association sometimes call Usually Extorting Anybody.

A search ("curtis bramble") quickly gives his legislative E-mail and his appearance in the news (is this guy running for Higher Office?). Prominent is his association with the UTA and the UEA. The UTA is a lobby to control taxes in the interests of its members. As to who is a Downtrodden Taxpayer and who is a Privaledged Taxpayer; my guess it has something to do with contributions. Their ususual rant is 'reduce taxes'. The UEA on the other hand is "more money (for education)" Thus, toss in a Anti-Big Box sentiment and a reaction against SLC and Hizzoner Rocky, Sacred Cows (education) and PAC money rule the day, the lightening rod unfortunetly happened to be a Soccer Stadium.

In Senator Bramble's explanations in the media and in reply to an E-mail, (copy upon request) his only statment has been "we can't take money from education".

We must win over or get around these two blockers before we can score a stadium goal!

[Rover]

Originally Posted by Rocky J Squirrel

Senator Bramble has become the target, but is he the real enemy? Every politician has his campaign doners and Lobbyist friends. KSL/Deseret Morning News did a report a couple of weeks ago, I wonder what the correlation is between an anti-RDA position and a legislators funding?

The weirdest alliance ever, got together to put together the RDA limitation bill: UTA Utah Taxpayers Association otherwise known as the Universal Tax Againsters and the UEA the Teachers Union Known publically as the Utah Education Association sometimes call Usually Extorting Anybody.

A search ("curtis bramble") quickly gives his legislative E-mail and his appearance in the news (is this guy running for Higher Office?). Prominent is his association with the UTA and the UEA. The UTA is a lobby to control taxes in the interests of its members. As to who is a Downtrodden Taxpayer and who is a Privaledged Taxpayer; my guess it has something to do with contributions. Their ususual rant is 'reduce taxes'. The UEA on the other hand is "more money (for education)" Thus, toss in a Anti-Big Box sentiment and a reaction against SLC and Hizzoner Rocky, Sacred Cows (education) and PAC money rule the day, the lightening rod unfortunetly happened to be a Soccer Stadium.

In Senator Bramble's explanations in the media and in reply to an E-mail, (copy upon request) his only statment has been "we can't take money from education".

We must win over or get around these two blockers before we can score a stadium goal!

Good analysis. Connect the dots. Or, as they say, follow the money.

[bordelais7]

Great analysis to help us understand the root of the issue.

I just want to go on record as saying that the UTA, UEA, and Bramble are very active political components and do a lot of great things. They just tend to be a little narrow-minded sometimes and fail to look at the big picture while trying to support their goals and mission statements, partly due to their financial motivations.

And with that being said, I think there's a good chance that I've offended just about everyone on the board today in one way or another.

[Aero]

Originally Posted by bordelais7

And with that being said, I think there's a good chance that I've offended just about everyone on the board today in one way or another.

You haven't offended me yet. You should probably try a little harder. :D

[bordelais7]

how about "Scooby Doo sucks"?

[Aero]

Nope, because I no you don't really mean it. There isn't a person alive that doesn't like Scooby Doo. You'll probably just have to live with the fact that you didn't offend everyone today.