If the arena is a viable economic entity, it should have investors lining up for it. looking to spend their OWN money and to seize correspondingly their OWN profits from the enterprise.
Alas, these selfsame investors now are well educated in the weakness of a corporatized government disconnected from Populism. Add in the factor of widespread immorality amongst the investor class, and we end up at the current travesty. Like sharks, they circle Government Center, looking for a good spot to take a bite out of it.
So via the arena project, the public is going to have its funds stolen yet again by one means or another. This will be even more terrible since many citizens think that this theft will be a good thing, hence they will condone it.
... until they "wake up poor on the continent their fathers conquered", as Jefferson put it. By then it will largely be too late to fix things without resorting to violence.
Perhaps I've misapplied my understanding of society. Perhaps what I'm complaining about is the NEW Populism. The New Populism is a conscious collective decision to let government be run by elites who use public funds for private entities in many instances. This certainly explains the ennui of the public.
posted by GuestZero at 01:18 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 07, 2006 #
Talk about an egotistical comment...who would ever say, "Of course, NBC-24 broke some exclusive details about the project?"
posted by Spinny at 02:49 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 07, 2006 #
"conscious collective decision to let government be run by elites who use public funds for private entities in many instances"
That would explain the Eminent Domain decision by the US Supreme Court last year....just a thought.
posted by katie82640 at 11:17 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 07, 2006 #
katie82640 said: "That would explain the Eminent Domain decision by the US Supreme Court last year"
Don't remind me. I have trouble enough sleeping at night as it is.
Anyhoo, it seems that Skippy is counting on the general public not understanding that bonds are paid off by TAXES, even if it is all magically in the future and out of our present hands:
$15M offered to lure arena downtown; Lucas County, state leaders weigh in on Toledo site
Quote: "Early estimates are a $50 million to $70 million price tag for the arena."
Anyone want to bet that even the high figure is $20 million too low?
Quote: "Mr. Finkbeiner told The Blade he boycotted the lunch yesterday because of the legislation [proposed by state Sen. Randy Gardner (R., Bowling Green)], which is supported by Mr. Gerken."
Once again we see that Carty is not willing to play well with others. It seems clear that his campaign promises (alas, he made far too many for even a optimist to believe) are highly contingent on everyone doing what Carty wants. Too bad no one's told Carty yet that you don't vote for kings.
posted by GuestZero at 02:07 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 07, 2006 #
There's more in today's Blade story that does seem a bit alarming, at least to me who doesn't fully understand what in the hell "they" are doing.
"Don Monroe, the new coordinator of the Marina District and executive director of River East Economic Revitalization Association, said, “First, we have to give up the arena, now we have to pay $5 million for the [current] arena, and now they’re taking away money earmarked for the Marina District. Why not just blow up the Martin Luther King, Jr., Bridge and be done with it? Cut us off.” "
It's the last part of what Don said, about money earmarked for the Marina District that concerns me.
"Another $7.5 million could be available from legislative maneuvering by state Sen. Randy Gardner (R., Bowling Green). He plans to remove references to the Marina District from the state budget to free up the millions now earmarked for an east-side arena."
The money leaving the Marina District for a west-side arena, is it money initially meant for an east-side arena, or is it money for the east-side Marina District project that could be used for anything in the Marina District? It gets more confusing all the time.
Now here's why Carty boycotted the lunch:
"Mr. Gardner’s legislative plans riled Mayor Carty Finkbeiner and state Rep. Peter Ujvagi (D., Toledo), who represents the Marina District area. The two want assurances that the money would be replaced with something of equal value, such as an amphitheater or ice-rink facility."
"Mr. Finkbeiner told The Blade he boycotted the lunch yesterday because of the legislation, which is supported by Mr. Gerken."
The arena can be built anywhere in Toledo, but city money cannot be used for it because of that 2001 vote.
But I don't understand why money that seems to have been meant for the Marina District is being used for an arena built outside of the Marina District.
Is the east side truly being screwed over by Gardner's legislative maneuvering?
posted by jr at 02:22 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 07, 2006 #
katie82640 said: "That would explain the Eminent Domain decision by the US Supreme Court last year"
Ah, yes-the Kelo Decision. That pretty much took away the last pretense of a free country.
The East Side will always be treated with contempt-except at election time.
posted by Foolkiller at 03:23 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 07, 2006 #
Jr.,
The money leaving the Marina District for a west-side arena, is it money initially meant for an east-side arena,
YES!
The arena can be built anywhere in Toledo, but city money cannot be used for it because of that 2001 vote.
YES! Only if built in the Marina District.
Is the east side truly being screwed over by Gardner's legislative maneuvering?
YES!!!!!!!! and 2 Lucas County Commissioners, not to mention City Government
I quick looked for a link at the Free Press but don't have time right now. Maggie Thurber wrote some months back how this all works, and explained it very thoroughly. Find her column in the TFP, then you might understand. Seems like it was in January, maybe December.
posted by SherryET at 10:15 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 07, 2006 #
Bob Frantz spoke with Bruce Rumpf Tuesday evening on "Eye on Toledo," and Bruce said state money was earmarked just for an east-side arena, and this is the $7.5 million that Gardner is trying to magically divert to a west-side development.
Bruce also mentioned that one reason why an arena on the east-side is not a possibility is because the Marina District land could not support the weight of a new arena in a cost effective manner. Special concrete pilons or something would have to be sunk deep into the ground to help support the building, which adds to the overall cost of the project.
Frantz said that was the first time he had heard about the land not supporting the weight of the arena, but it's not the first time this has been mentioned.
This arena's weight issue on the east side came up at last June's sports arena workshop meetings. From my June 2005 notes about the two June public arena meetings:
"According to Kathy [Steingraber, executive director of the Toledo Warehouse District Association] last week, there's this belief out there that the land on the east side of the river can't support the weight of a five-story arena, and that's why the arena will be put on the west side of the river. I'm not that in tune with the city, so that was the first I had heard about the arena's weight problem. Obviously, Kathy disagrees with this weight issue idea. She pointed out that the Middle Grounds is able to support the weight of the Owens Corning building, and therefore the east bank of the river should be able to support the weight of an arena."
"At last week's meeting, [Jim Russell of Pizzuti Cos] responded to Kathy by saying there's no problem with building an arena on the east bank. If the land is too soft, it just means construction costs go up a little due to putting reinforcement structures deeper into the ground. But there's no weight problem. So Russell solved Kathy's weight issue last week, but Kathy brought it up again at today's meeting."
On Frantz's show last night, Bruce Rumpf didn't provide the details as to how much the reinforcement structures would cost if they were needed for a Marina District arena. Rumpf just threw the weight excuse out there as if it was a real legitimate reason to not build on the east side.
Last summer, Pizzuti didn't provide the additional reinforcement cost figures, but after listening to Russell of Pizzuti it didn't sound like the reinforcement structures were that big of deal. If they were even needed at all. Sure, there would be some additional costs, but I didn't get the feeling from Russell that it was a show-stopper like Rumpf tried to make it out to be on Frantz's show last night.
The biggest added expense to putting an arena on the east side is the parking garage. You can't waste good riverfront property by putting down another large surface parking lot. From my June notes:
"The parking garage cost, it's a figure Ford says no one is talking about. If the arena is built on the east side, Ford told the residents to expect an additional $60 million expense to build a four-story parking garage that has four thousand spaces. 30 acres of surface parking equals a four-story garage. Surface parking along the river is a waste of prime real estate. And according to McCloskey, it's now illegal to build surface parking in downtown Toledo."
"But this parking garage expense will get factored into the decision where to locate the arena. I guess no garage is planned if the arena goes on the downtown side. The study says parking is available [on the west-side of] downtown."
"Parking, that's a major issue in determining the location of the arena. Apparently, there are 11,000 parking spaces on the [west side of] downtown, and most are empty in the evening. So no additional parking for the [west side of] downtown is required. A $60 million garage or a 30 acre surface lot is needed for the east side."
"A citizen made the comment that there were not enough parking spaces [on the west side of] downtown to accommodate the 7,000 Jehovah's Witnesses that attended a convention at the SeaGate Centre a couple weekends ago. The citizen said a Blade article pointed out this parking problem. So the question was, how can [the west side of] downtown support a 10,000 seat arena without additional parking if it can't support 7,000 Jehovah's Witnesses."
"After the citizen brought up this question about parking and the Blade article, James Donnelly went to the microphone to respond. He loudly mentioned the millions of dollars coming into Toledo due to these conventions. Then he addressed the parking issue."
"What the Blade left out of the article is the fact that the negotiations included FREE parking for the JWs. Parking for 7000 is not a problem in downtown. Finding that much FREE parking was the issue. Free parking for the JW members was part of the plan to help bring in the conventions. Donnelly said this is the reason why they had to look outside of the downtown area for additional parking because he guaranteed FREE parking. When you add up both free and paid parking, Jim Donnelly said there is already ample parking downtown to support the convention center, the Mud Hens stadium, and a new arena."
When talking about a new west-side arena on Frantz's show last night, Bruce Rumpf said the arena would host "200 shows." Bob didn't pin Rumpf down on what that means exactly. Does that mean the arena is open 200 days? If so, where in the hell did Rumpf get that number?
Right now, Pizzuti is the Marina District developer, and they have been asked to be involved with the arena project. Last year, Pizzuti hired a company that specializes in arenas to do a feasibility study to determine if an arena is doable ANYWHERE in Toledo. The results of that stuy were presented at last summer's arena meetings. The study said the arena should be downtown and not out on the edges of Toledo, such as Southwyck or the old Jeep plant. The study said an arena would work on either side of the river, just as long as it was downtown. Downtown meaning east-side and west-side. The study said the west side of the river showed a slight edge over the east side.
The study also said:
"On average, they would expect the arena to be active 110-120 days per year. It would have 8,000 - 10,000 seats. Would have to be host to at least one sports team. Hockey is the likely choice for Toledo, but there's also the chance for some kind of arena football league and basketball."
So where did Rumpf get his "200 shows" figure? I'm assuming Rumpf's "200 shows" number means he expects the arena to be active 200 days per year. I suppose you could have more than one show per day, so maybe Rumpf isn't implying the arena would be open 200 days per year.
Now maybe Rumpf got that 200 shows number from Ray Kest's June 2003 arena plan. From that story:
"Under Mr. Kest's plan, a new arena would seat as many as 14,000 people and could count on as many as 200 events a year."
When these cheerleaders like Rumpf start spewing info, I wish the media would force them to give specifics. We have Kest's plan claiming 200 events per year while a study from people who specialize in studying arenas say 110-120 days per year. That's a big difference that people like Rumpf or whoever is involved needs to explain.
Is Skippy financing the new arena according to Kest's 2003 arena plan, which is similar to what was done with the Hens stadium?
"Mr. Kest cited the success of Fifth Third Field, paid for in part by his office's purchase of $6 million in revenue bonds, as evidence that his proposal has credibility. The facility would be financed largely by a surcharge on tickets, averaging $2."
Kest's 2003 plan said:
"He estimated the cost at $46 million in construction plus $5 million for land acquisition and business relocation."
The sources of revenue would be:
* $5 million in naming rights.
* $7.5 million from the state of Ohio.
* $7.5 million in "asset-backed bonds" supported by income from rental of the facility, concessions, and sales of suites and club seats.
* $31 million in revenue bonds backed by the income from per-ticket fees.
When Skippy and Rumpf and everyone else involved starts coming up with a finance plan, which number will they use for determining the number of days per year they expect the arena to be open: 200 or 110-120?
For Fifth Third Field it was easier. It's only used for one thing: baseball. And the Hens play roughly the same number of home games year after year. You don't have to go out and attract events to the Hens stadium because the Hens are the only event. Estimating attendance is harder, but for Fifth Third Field, you only have to do it for baseball.
I assume an arena is a slightly different animal.
From the March 7, 2006 Blade article about the arena:
"Lucas County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz said that his office would float up to $15 million in bonds as seed money for a sports arena in downtown Toledo. Early estimates are a $50 million to $70 million price tag for the arena. Millions also are expected from the sale of naming rights, possibly to Owens Corning."
"Fifth Third Bank paid $5 million for the rights to name the Mud Hens’ field, and Huntington Bank has agreed to pay $12 million over 23 years for the rights to name the Columbus Clippers ballpark Huntington Park."
No mention in the article about how many days per year the arena is expected to be open. Maybe that's something Chema is suppose to determine.
"Lucas County also has agreed to a 90-day, $125,000 contract with Tom Chema’s Gateway Consulting and two other firms with expertise in arenas to research and choose a downtown location. The study also would determine if an arena could make enough money to be viable."
One more interesting thing from the article about state Sen. Randy Gardner of Bowling Green:
"Mr. Gardner’s Wood County district and Mr. Ujvagi’s east-side Marina District have been in head-to-head competition to land Bass Pro Shops as a major retail anchor."
posted by jr at 12:12 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 08, 2006 #
There are some structural issues with the ground on the East side, but the Pizzuti report done for the city of Toledo did not think that those issues were "deal-breakers." Outside the actual construction, the major cost associated with an east-side arena is the construction of a parking garage because you don't want a sea of asphalt surrounding any arena - especially on the waterfront.
Outside construction, the major cost associated with a downtown arena is the site acquisition.
And a contract with Chema's Gateway Consulting has not yet been agreed to - it's on the agenda for the BCC meeting Tuesday, March 14th.
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:48 A.M. EST on Thu Mar 09, 2006 #
March 14 Blade story:
"Downtown Toledo is parking rich and event poor. That's the word from consultants searching for a sports arena site. And it's one less thing to worry about for the $50 million to $70 million project, they say."
"To handle the worst-case scenario for one night - 10,000 at Fifth Third Field, 10,000 in a downtown arena, and 5,000 conventioneers at SeaGate Centre - would require 10,000 spaces within walking distance. Toledo has 19,992. It's lopsided compared to many cities, where parking is a development bugaboo."
" "Most cities don't have a parking problem, they have a walking problem. Nobody wants to walk anywhere," said Tom Chema, head of Gateway Consulting, in charge of locating a new arena. "Usually, in most cities, you have slightly more spaces than you need. Here, we have many more," he told a group of business leaders last week."
posted by jr at 04:33 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
