This is a perfect example of our past and current leadership in Toledo. They still can't make a decision where to build the arena and consequently the cost of construction keeps going up every year.
posted by rooky at 01:42 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
It could have been built in Rossford seven years ago for a lot less.
posted by toledojim at 02:12 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
If they say they can build a new arena downtown for 80 million (YIKES) - how much would it cost to build it in the existing location (the old arena on the east side)?
Also, the Blade claims there are at least 19,000 parking places downtown - WHERE? They made it sound like the parking would be convenient and close by.
posted by starling02 at 08:30 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
The new arena needs to go near 5/3 field. Once that happens you'll have events downtown at least 150 to 180 days/nights a year. If they could twist UT's arm, and get them down there, you'd increase it to maybe as much as 200 days/nights a year. This will be more than enough incentive for major dinning and entertainment establishments to locate nearby. It's called synergy.
You folks need to get out and take a look at the rest of the country and see how it's been successfully done elsewhere.
posted by YakRider at 11:36 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
UT athletic events are staying on campus. President Jacobs has said so and the Athletic department has accepted a 6 million dollar donation that is dependent upon it.
No amount of arm twisting will change that.
-Dan
posted by photodan at 11:55 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
photodan - really interesting idea. Lots of common sense there - which virtually guarantees it will go nowhere. :)
Frankly, my jaded perspective on this is that the downtown arena is thought to be a significant economic catalyst for Toledo. I have yet to see anything that convinces me this is a justified belief...And cities that have done this (like YakRider is suggesting) have done other things in addition to an arena which resulted in the growth. Somehow, I just don't see all the same types of things happening here with the current leadership and mindsets.
This is why one of the deliverables I asked for in the "study" is to address how much spending generated by a new arena (and synergistic businesses) will be NEW spending versus a redirection of existing spending already occurring in the County?
Toledo officials keep saying how we have to have a regional approach because all we're currently doing is moving spending/population/businesses from Toledo into the surrounding suburbs. Well, the same perspective needs to apply in the reverse when it comes to the arena. It must be equally bad to move spending from the suburbs into downtown Toledo. Which is why an analysis of NEW spending becomes so important. Otherwise, all we're doing is moving things around and not growing.
As soon as the report is finished, I'll make sure it's available for everyone to see. You can then (as bloggers and posters do so well) analyze it yourself.
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:14 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
Everything in Toledo is too spread out. We need to consolidate. It needs to be downtown.
posted by thetoledowire_com at 08:05 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
wire, can you explain what's too spread out?
One side of the river vs the other is a distance difference of what, a quarter mile? a half mile? Or are you one of those who dont count the restaurants at the docks as part of the venue that down town has to offer? Because they are listed in all the lists showing places to eat - down town.
What is all spread out?? The baseball stadium and seagate center are across the street from one another. The are museum is just north. The Zoo is just a mile or so down the trail...
Im not saying I disagree that it should be downtown, but Im not sure if I follow the logic youre using.
posted by billy at 08:45 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
Try walking from one of those places to the other. That is why it is too spread out. Look at the docks. You have a half dozen high quality restaurants crammed right next to each other, and they are doing great. We need more synergy in Toledo. The baseball stadium and seagate are a good start. We need more of that.
posted by thetoledowire_com at 08:58 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
With a society based wholly on everybody having their own vehicle, I don't see what walking distance has to do with anything. Chances are, the people drove from their home to the first destination anyway. Simply driving to another is not seen as a hassle.
-Dan
posted by photodan at 09:29 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
"Twisting" the arms of UT is just another example of NW Ohioans combative view toward UT.
UT holds no financial or social obligation to Toledo other than to produce qualified graduates.
The city does nothing to promote the school so why should the school feel obligated to promote the city?
I believe that downtown is where the arena should be but if a suburb can put together the capital to make it cheaper or less of a burden on the county then I would support it there.
The city needs to get over a few points. 1. Parking costs money in cities. Every decent sized city. it's a moot issue.
2. Economic development can only be complemented by the arena but not spurred by it. And this should not be the only plan for downtown. City Council should be thinking of new projects other than sporting venues to create on a daily basis.
posted by MikeyA at 01:01 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
MaggieThurber - "Toledo officials keep saying how we have to have a regional approach because all we're currently doing is moving spending/population/businesses from Toledo into the surrounding suburbs."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People and businesses in Maumee, Perrysburg, Oregon, Sylvania, etc., had a choice of where to locate and they made it. Toledo officials can dream about recapturing the tax base until the cows come home. It's not likely to happen, and even if it did, you'll just get introduced to a new terminology. Instead of "suburban flight," you'll get to experience "leap frogging" where development moves further out, or even into Michigan (assuming they drop their incredible antibusiness tax scheme this November).
It's time to make Toledo an attractive location again.
posted by YakRider at 03:42 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
MikeyA - "Economic development can only be complemented by the arena but not spurred by it. And this should not be the only plan for downtown. City Council should be thinking of new projects other than sporting venues to create on a daily basis."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly, the new downtown arena should just be considered another piece in the ongoing task of putting together the puzzle. There's no overnight fix for 30+ years of bumbling.
We'll just have to disagree about UT. If they can't see what 5/3 did for Mud Hens' attendance, and if they're content playing in a band box, in front of small crowds, that's their problem.
posted by YakRider at 03:50 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
Building a new arena won't solve the economic problems of the city, but it will make downtown more attactive to potential residents...especially younger people. It's my opinion that any growing city (in terms of both the economy and population) needs a vibrant downtown. I interact with potential students at MUO all the time through interviews, tours, etc. Downtown always comes up....are there clubs, are there nice restaurants, is there shopping, is there nice housing, is it safe, and so on. When choosing where to live younger people demand a nice downtown. I think the arena is one of many steps that needs to be taken in order to achieve a vibrant downtown. It may only shift restaurants and clubs from other parts of the city, but I contend that this would still be a net positive for the city.
I wish UT would be willing to move their arena downtown. Other cities have done this with great results. Kentucky's Rupp Arena (arguably the best basketball arena in the country) is located in downtown Lexington, not on UK's campus. The University of Louisville has had an off-campus arena for 30 years now and is in the process of getting a new arena downtown. The University of Memphis is now playing in the FedEx Forum in downtown Memphis, which is at least 20 minutes from their campus. An arena downtown will help develop it even further, but I don't know if the administration at UT understands how important the state of downtown Toledo is in its endeavor to attract high quality students.
posted by HeyHey at 03:51 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
With a society based wholly on everybody having their own vehicle, I don't see what walking distance has to do with anything. Chances are, the people drove from their home to the first destination anyway. Simply driving to another is not seen as a hassle.
True they drove there, but driving around is most certainly a hassle. That's why everyone shops at malls. It's easy, it's convient and hey, it's even a little fun. Driving around town all day from location to location is a burden, a burden some are not willing to pay. That is why Toledo needs a good downtown package. The Sports Arena, by providing the conditions for other small businesses to flurish, is a central part of that packege. We've seen a lot of renovation and investment since moving the stadium downtown. We know it's working. We need to continue to foster that growth.
posted by thetoledowire_com at 07:40 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
Perhaps it's a hassle if you have a large number of stops to make but driving is simply not a big deal if you just want to hit a restaurant after a sporting event.
-Dan
posted by photodan at 10:39 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
It may only shift restaurants and clubs from other parts of the city, but I contend that this would still be a net positive for the city. posted by HeyHey
Very true, HeyHey, but why, as a county commissioner responsible for the entire county, would I want to support something that was a plus for one community but a detriment to another? Ah - there's the rub!
Hence, my point...if an arena is built, it must be an economic benefit for the entire county, not just the city of Toledo. How do you make such a determination? You look at any increase in the sales taxes, for example, and make sure that you're not just moving spending around WITHIN the county.
And if Toledo really wants to increase the trust and take a regional approach to things, as they keep saying, they can't - in good conscience - advocate "stealing" spending from the suburbs in order to have spending in the downtown. They are constantly criticizing the suburbs for "stealing" their businesses and residents. The argument goes both ways and everyone needs to remember that.
As for the argument Toledowire keeps making, a new arena is not the same as 5/3 Field. And a year-round operation is not the same as a seasonal facility. Additionally, the MudHens staff won't be managing the arena (too bad!)
My personal opinion is that the 'synergy' needs to be because of JOBS, not entertainment. Entertainment will follow the jobs and people, not the other way around. And no matter how much people want to believe this, the idea of "build it and they will come" has no basis in fact. There are so many other factors which come into play for the success of an area. Simply building an arena without addressing such things as taxes, infrastructure and a 'business-friendly' environment is, for lack of a better analogy, like putting new paint on a house without repairing the crumbling foundation.
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:10 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
I think what you are saying is true in the Toledo area. Here people don't look at things as the metro area. Instead we look at it as Perrysburg, Maumee, Toledo (and within Toledo we look at it as East Toledo, Point Place, South Toledo, Westgate, etc!!!), Sylvania, Oregon, or Bedford. I think a vibrant downtown would be a huge selling point for all the areas I just mentioned, not just Toledo. People from the suburbs enjoy a nice downtown.
posted by HeyHey at 08:58 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
People from the suburbs enjoy a nice downtown.
People from the suburbs are afraid of downtown.
posted by fequalsma73 at 09:00 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
People from the suburbs are afraid of downtown.
That's why it needs to be vibrant. People aren't afraid of downtown Indianaspolis, Nashville, Chicago, or Atlanta. If downtown Toledo was considered safe then I think you'd see a lot more suburban people heading that way.
I also think they are currently misguided in their opinions. If we had statistics looking at the area bounded by Cherry, 13th, and Washington I think we'd find that it would actually be the safest part of the city.
posted by HeyHey at 09:42 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
People from the suburbs have their own 'downtowns'. And commercial/retail areas.
For a perspective - while an arena may be over 80m - we ok'd a 4.49 mill, 28 year bond issue to support the school building program. If the math is correct here: http://www.tpsinfo.com/bfs/ProjectFacts.html
That's 366m over 28 years. So 80m for an arena probably sounds really reasonable to some people.
posted by katie82640 at 10:09 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
A stadium will get a boost of fans INITIALLY after it is built. An example of this would be Comerica Park. They saw an attendence burst after they built the stadium. Then when the team lost the 2nd most games in the modern era they saw the same attendance problems they had with Tigers Stadium. I contend that the Mud Hens current attendance figures are more due to their winning tendancies.
The teams HeyHey mentioned, Kentucky, Louisville are both teams that make it to the NCAA on an annual basis. UT has not made it to the tournament since Stan Joplin was a PLAYER!
If UT moved downtown they'd probably have a burst of attendance INITIALLY. Then like U of Akron, another team that struggles with success and off campus locations, they'd find their attendance woes yet again. The only thing that'll help UT's attendance is better play on the court.
I do agree with HeyHey that people need to "feel" safe. That's why I suggested that if we created an entertainment district open only to walking traffic it could be easily patrolled by bike and horse patrol. The police presence would be felt and people would feel safe.
posted by MikeyA at 11:40 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
My question is, why can't they re-build or re-furbish the current sports arena? the building is already there, the parking is already there. Im sure it could be done for less than 80 mil, couldn't it???
posted by tm at 12:12 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
the hockey arena?
posted by katie82640 at 12:14 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
The ONLY reason that has me supporting moving the Arena downtown is the Seagate Center consistently has to turn down conventions who go to smaller cities who have arena's in conjunction with their civic amenities.
posted by MikeyA at 12:36 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
I'm certainly not afraid of going downtown. One of my friends lives in the Commodore Perry apartments so I'm down there frequently. Nobody has ever bothered me and the only damage I've suffered was a car flag being broken off my car. (and I blame drunk BG fans at the bar for that)
The people who are afraid of downtown probably haven't been down there lately.
-Dan
posted by photodan at 10:56 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
I hate to say this because I have friends in Toledo government but my stance on UT athletics staying on campus is partly because of my lack of faith in the city/county's ability to actually get the project done. UT needs to look out for itself first.
In computer terms, this arena is vaporware. "Vaporware is software or hardware which is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge, either with or without a protracted development cycle. The term implies deception, or at least a negligent degree of optimism; that is, it implies that the announcer knows that product development is in too early a stage to support responsible statements about its completion date, feature set, or even feasibility."
Maybe it's not fair to lay all the blame on local government. Maybe I feel this way because we've all been led on by the multiple promises of a new facility. Gladieux mislead us all with Sports Arena renovation plans that he had no intention of building, the new arena in Rossford died on the vine and we've been hearing about this new Toledo arena plan for many years with no action. Now the estimated price tag has climbed to $80M+. (When is the last time you heard of a project like this finishing *under* budget?)
Is it any wonder that I, and possibly the UT administration, doubt we'll ever see it built?
-Dan
posted by photodan at 11:47 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
photodan said: "consider [...] an expanded Savage Hall renovation so it could meet everyone's needs"
What about my needs? I need to have my tax money used for minimum public purposes, not to support what is clearly a private, for-profit enterprise that has nothing to do with law enforcement and utilities.
This is Socialism in its worst possible form.
YakRider said: "You folks need to get out and take a look at the rest of the country and see how it's been successfully done elsewhere."
You need to understand that Toledo has tried and failed so many times that you clearly don't understand what it means to "beat a dead horse". "Successful projects" (please note quotes -- many of these projects are too new to evaluate) don't have universal applicability for the obvious reasons.
The market is supposed to sort these things out. In Toledo, the welfare state will not let the market operate. Past that great and defining flaw in Toledo, the real force of the market is being expressed by the flight of businesses and population. The real market force says Toledo must downsize, one way or another. Yet people like you don't seem to notice such trends ... with your nose so busily stuck perhaps in the HappyNews{tm} system that plays up all this allegedly successful, so-called economic development.
Mags said: "Toledo officials keep saying how we have to have a regional approach because all we're currently doing is moving spending/population/businesses from Toledo into the surrounding suburbs."
Like I said, Mags, this is the expression of a real market under an oppressive local government that relies on overly-Socialist methods for getting anything done -- and by definition, there is little proper questioning about even why such things need to get done. The market is speaking as it can, and the word is that "Toledo sucks so badly that it deserves to downsize" -- yet the politicians continue to ignore that clear condemnation of their abilities, and in a very corporate-statist kind of way they are trying to impose their will on the areas of wealth- and population-flight by expanding their legal authority.
photodan said: "[W]e've been hearing about this new Toledo arena plan for many years with no action. Now the estimated price tag has climbed to $80M+."
Personally I'm thinking that the price rose so spectacularly because:
1. A larger and more collectivist action could gather more support energy.
2. There exists a pervasive mental disease whereby a product is repackaged at a greater price and which then spurs more market interest.
3. Toledo is progressively losing common political control, hence more money can now be stolen from the public treasury in each looting attempt.
posted by GuestZero at 02:58 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 01, 2006 #
GZ, with my idea, I would have thought you'd be happier because it would cost much less and still satisfy the overwhelming majority of area residents who want a new entertainment venue. (I'll note your one vote against) I guess that's just proof that you can never please everyone.
Actually I think the estimate rose because it's now a decade or so later and things cost more.
-Dan
posted by photodan at 06:38 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 01, 2006 #
On regional government - it just seems that a few basic economic principles have been overlooked:
1. Business will do business where it can thrive
2. Business is leaving Toledo
3. Residents must follow business for income
4. Residents are leaving Toledo
5. Toledo runs on tax dollars
6. Tax dollars are leaving Toledo
So, now in the light of above what would a rational mind do? Mayhaps look at what drove the business out of Toledo? Fix it? Hmmmm?
Instead we're dialoguing about, basically, snaring those businesses who moved themselves out of Toledo, by force - to regain the lost tax dollars.
This is not an ethical solution.
posted by katie82640 at 11:32 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 01, 2006 #
Dan, duly noted. However, UT can partner with private investors for an arena as an expansion of Savage Hall in line with your thoughts. Let me know if you ever see any of this outrageous practice of real capitalism, since I'll run out inmmediately and start playing the lotto.
posted by GuestZero at 02:08 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 01, 2006 #
You know James Trafficant succeeded in getting enough money for Youngstown to build a stadium just before he went to jail. He currently has such a high approval rating that when he gets out of jail he'll probably be reelected to the post he had to give up.
I wonder why Congresswoman Kaptur can't spur up any federal funding for the city if Congressman Trafficant could?
posted by MikeyA at 02:25 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 01, 2006 #
Perhaps Marcy isn't willing to put herself in the same position(s) that Trafficante did. Can't say I much blame her on that one.
posted by DoknowDocare at 09:06 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 01, 2006 #
I've done some research on Marcy Kaptur and her voting record.
I think the boys n' girls back home would be plenty pissed off at this 'union' rep. NOT.
posted by katie82640 at 10:02 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 01, 2006 #
-katie-thankyou for rooting for me on this Subject matter...and...believing in Greenpeace!
P.S. Hope your mother is doing well...
posted by MARIELORA at 04:24 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 02, 2006 #
She had a decent checkup today marie. Thanks for asking. Greenpeace - let's just say I'll reserve judgment :-)
There are some good folk and then there are some that are kind of off the deep end. They've kept closer to the mission than - oh, for example NOW or the ACLU. Those were some heart breakers.
posted by katie82640 at 02:04 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 02, 2006 #
August 9, 2006 Blade story:
"A game plan for building an $80 million sports and concert arena on Superior Street in downtown Toledo was to be unveiled today with a planned 2008 christening and all the sources of money identified. The plan calls for a 2 percentage-point increase to the local hotel and motel tax and more than $12 million from the state."
"Although the 10,000-seat arena would block Superior, the 220,000-square-foot structure would not divide downtown, said Tom Chema. The arena, which architects would design, would be partially sunk into the ground. The venue would feature professional hockey, a new Arena Football League team, and concerts."
"If the community does not like the site and there is a big enough outcry against it, Gateway has a second choice, which is being kept a secret, Mr. Chema said. Mr. Gerken said he was tired of the delays for constructing a new arena, talked about since 1999."
Wrong! A new arena near the convention centre was first proposed in 1993.
"[Lou Anne] Mills was one of the first to raise the arena issue publicly when she and SSOE architect Charlie Stark produced a 57-page report in 1993 promoting the benefits and feasibilities of a new 15,000-seat arena adjacent to the SeaGate Convention Centre."
The Blade is also wrong or most likely will be wrong about Toledo getting an Arena Football League team. Toledo would get an Arena 2 (AF2) football team and not a team in the Arena Football League that's televised on NBC. Arena 2 is the development league for the main Arena Football League.
Toledo is building a 10,000 seat arena. I'm not sure how many people a 10,000 seat arena could hold for an arena football game, but it could be that Toledo's proposed arena would be too small to ever have a shot at the main arena league.
"The AFL's attendance has increased dramatically over the last few years, rising to over 12,400 people per game in 2005."
At Wikipedia, is a list of possible cities the main AFL could expand to. Toledo is not on that list. But since anyone can edit that Wikipedia article, add Toledo to the list. Except for Grand Rapids, Michigan and maybe Austin, Texas, the AFL plays in large markets. AF2 plays in smaller markets. Toledo is listed on Wikipedia's AF2 article as a city for possible AF2 expansion.
A 10,000 seat arena, how many does it hold when it's configured for a basketball game? What kind of configuration is that seat number based on, anyway? I'm thinking Toledo's proposed arena will be too small to host an early round in the men's NCAA basketball tournament. Is it big enough to host women's games? Is Toledo's proposed arena big enough to host NCAA hockey tournament games?
More from the August 9 Blade story:
"Under the plan, Subway and Golden Lily restaurants, along with Club Bijou, on Superior would be razed. Frogtown Alley also would disappear under the new structure. The convention center's bond debt, more than $13 million, would be rolled into the arena debt, saving money on interest. And a new nonprofit governing authority would be created to oversee the joint operation."
"The bonds would be paid back with an estimated $42.5 million over 30 years by increasing the local hotel-motel tax from 8 percent to 10 percent, which must be approved by the state legislature, and from revenues from operations, such as ticket sales."
"Up-front cash, including $14 million from private sources for naming rights and the sale of luxury boxes, at least $12.25 million from the state, a $2 million federal grant for the TARTA bus system, $1.2 million in interest savings from refinancing the convention center bonds, and $9.9 million borrowed on the bond market also would cover the estimated $81.85 million price tag. The construction would cost $62.26 million; buying the land $7.75 million. Other costs include equipment, such as furniture and fixtures, the report states."
"Starting today, a six-month process begins to seek bids for architectural services, a construction manager, and a facilities manager. Meanwhile, local officials will wait for the legislature to act by December to approve at least 15 percent of the total cost, as it has for other Ohio cities' arena projects, and increasing the hotel tax. If the state funding is approved, construction would take about 15 months, in time for the 2008-2009 hockey season, Mr. Chema said."
In that Blade article was no mention of the number of days per year the arena is expected to be used. I'm guessing that info will come out later today or tomorrow. Will the arena be used 120 or 200 days per year?
And I wonder if the report mentions UT's plans to renovate Savage Hall and how that will affect the events attracted to the new arena?
posted by jr at 03:51 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
jr - no...it doesn't mention the renovation plans at Savage Hall...It is af2...
to access the plan and the exhibits (which have the supporting documentation), click here
posted by MaggieThurber at 04:00 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
From the action plan about arena size:
"[Convention Sports and Leisure] recommended that the arena be sized to accommodate approximately 10,000 for concerts in a combination of fixed seats, premium seating, and temporary floor seating. Depending upon the arenas bowl layout, between 8,000 to 9,000 attendees could be accommodated for basketball and ice hockey events that would meet the attendance demands anticipated by CS&L for those events."
The other question I've had is why a 10,000 seat arena instead of a 14,000 seat arena?
From that plan:
---- start ----
The following is a summary of the key findings from the CS&L report:
Attendance levels at potential tenant sports events (minor-league hockey and Arena
Football 2 af2) were estimated to average fewer than 5,000 fans per game.
Since these tenant events will comprise most of the programming at the arena, it is
important to provide a capacity that will meet demand for larger audiences but provide an
intimate environment for games drawing a lower attendance.
The concert industry is trending to fewer tours that require a large capacity venue. In midsized
markets like Lucas County, an arena with a concert capacity of close to 10,000 will
be sufficient to attract the great majority of touring acts.
An analysis of recently constructed arenas in comparable markets shows an average of
10,200 fixed seats.
---- end ----
This table is an image I captured from the plan.
Comparable Arena Summary
I'd like to know the number of days per year the arena would be open. The number of events is fine too, but the arena could hold more than one event on the same day. I would think downtown business owners would be interested in knowing how many days per year the arena would attract people to downtown.
Back in March, Bruce Rumpf said on Bob Frantz's show that a new arena would host 200 shows per year.
In 2005, Pizzuti said 8,000 to 10,000 seats used 110-120 days per year.
In 2003, Kest said 14,000 seats used for 200 events a year.
From the plan:
"CS&L estimates that the arena could hold between 127 and 131 events and attract between 513,000 and 600,000 attendees annually depending upon the two scenarios."
Another image captured from the PDF document:
posted by jr at 05:30 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
Maggie - I'm sure sorry to hear about the dirty deal you were dealt. Again.
posted by katie82640 at 07:00 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
Katie- goes with the territory...I'm pretty used to it. thanks!
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:11 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
Toledo is not on that list. But since anyone can edit that Wikipedia article, add Toledo to the list.
Done.
posted by thenick at 08:02 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
I would like to see a poll on this website.
The question: Are you for or against the new sports arena ???
The one person who I hear who is totally against the idea of a new arena is Ellen Grachek!! She thinks that we have much better things to do with the money.
If we are thinking regionally, shouldn't both BGSU and UT be allowed to have regular season b-ball games at the new arena?
If the Rockets don't want to come downtown for an occasional game, shouldn't the Falcons be allowed to come downtown if they wish to do so??
posted by fredbruford at 08:05 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
fredbruford...curious: why do you think BG teams would want to travel 20-30 minutes to get to the arena in downtown Toledo, especially when most of their students live on campus?
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:27 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
Ellen Grachek was the only one on council to vote against the bike path yesterday because she thought the money could be better served elsewhere.
fredbruford, do you have a link to a news story that contains Grachek's opposition to an arena? Not that it matters because I don't think Toledo City Council has anything to do with a new arena. The county took over the arena project.
As we all know, UT has zero interest in playing its women's volleyball, women's basketball, and men's basketball games in a new downtown Toledo arena.
If UT wants to keep its sports on campus, I would think BG feels the same way. If UT doesn't want to travel a few miles to play downtown, why would BG want to travel 20 miles? It would be nice if BG played some of its hockey downtown.
I believe the events listed in the action plan above are what Toledo will get in a new arena. Sportswise right now, that would be the Toledo Storm hockey and possibly an AF2 team. I don't think it's a done deal that Toledo gets an AF2 team. An AF2 team only provides eight events.
posted by jr at 08:29 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
why do you think BG teams would want to travel 20-30 minutes to get to the arena in downtown Toledo, especially when most of their students live on campus?
Probably because they're traveling two hours away for a home football game.
posted by thenick at 08:46 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
thenick - they don't play football in their own stadium? did I miss something?
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:48 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
they don't play football in their own stadium? did I miss something?
BGSU is playing a home game this year in Cleveland Browns Stadium on September 2nd.
posted by thenick at 09:22 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
I think the money earned by BG's football team traveling to Cleveland to play a "home" game against Wisconsin will be larger than what the BG basketball team would earn by playing all of its home games in downtown Toledo. And UT's football team will play a home game in Cleveland against Ohio State in 2009. So why doesn't UT want to play its hoops downtown?
The answer is obviously money. UT will make big money by playing its home football game against Ohio State in Cleveland. OSU would never agree to play in Toledo. If UT wants to squeeze two big-money games out of OSU, then UT has to agree to play its "home" game in Cleveland.
Should never compare football and basketball. They are two different animals.
posted by jr at 09:59 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 09, 2006 #
The answer is obviously money.
Wouldn't BG get a lot of additional money through beer sales? IIRC, Anderson Arena doesn't have a liquor license and there may be some NCAA rule against on campus beer sales.
What I'd like to see is some college basketball games played in the new arena downtown during winter break. There's no students on campus and those games are usually the least attended all year.
posted by thenick at 07:37 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 10, 2006 #
Makes sense to me, thenick. How about some kind of holiday tournament for hoops or college hockey? Maybe Gerken or The Woz will make it so.
According to the BGSU 2006-2007 hockey schedule, the Falcons play in some kind of tournament or "classic" during winter break.
Fri 12/29/06 Ohio Hockey Classic Columbus, Ohio
Sat 12/30/06 Ohio Hockey Classic Columbus, Ohio
Last season, they played a hockey classic on Dec 29 and 30 in Storrs, Conn.
posted by jr at 07:56 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 10, 2006 #
About the location for the new arena as mentioned in the August 9, 2006 news:
"Under the plan, Subway and Golden Lily restaurants, along with Club Bijou, on Superior would be razed. Frogtown Alley also would disappear under the new structure."
February 7, 2006 posting:
"Mayor Carty Finkbeiner said he is leaning toward one [of the possible arena site locations] - an area between Jefferson and Madison avenues running from Summit Street through Superior Street toward Huron Street. It would encompass the Subway restaurant and Club Bijou, and extend perhaps across Frogtown Alley. The swath of land, which he said does not contain historic buildings, could become a sports arena campus, not just a building, he said."
April 4, 2006 posting that contained news by The Toledo Wire:
"Rumor has it that Club Bijou and the Underground are running low on time and may have less than a month. "Credible sources" have indicated that this "on-again-off-again" fixture of the Toledo music scene may be going away once more. Though, no reason for it's closing has been given, we can speculate (and I will) that this may be the site chosen for the new Sports Arena. The site including Bijou was a top contender in the eyes of city council due to it proximity to the Seagate Center and Mud Hen's Stadium. Also, the owner, Kipp, sounded eager to sell in Blade interviews making this possibility seem even more likely. Only time will tell."
"Update: Since originally posting this story, we have had a second source confirm the closing. Further more, this source, who claims to have political ties downtown, says the deal to purchase the Bijou property has been closed for months and they are currently keeping this information secret. This makes the current publicized debate over which downtown site will be used look like little more than a charade."
posted by jr at 08:08 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 10, 2006 #
On 1370 last night on the 6:00 show - he mentioned the owner of Club Bijou was running around 6 months ago hollering the city was offering him 3m for his club.
?? Curious....
posted by katie82640 at 10:04 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 10, 2006 #
$7,750,000 is estimated cost for site acquisition for the Superior St. location.
I believe a check of public records would show that the LCIC had issued checks for options on these - and other - properties quite some time ago - without a proper request by the BCC...
Maybe that's why the BCC has a resolution on it's agenda for Tuesday to give the LCIC $75,000 out of our economic development fund to be used for 'operational' costs of the LCIC...
posted by MaggieThurber at 10:26 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 10, 2006 #
"... check of public records would show that the LCIC ..."
An open records request, sounds like a project.
Any citizen can make a public records request, and we do not have to give our name nor the reason for the request, and the government must comply without hassle, correct?
"Government officials and employees regularly questioned the need for the records, improperly insisted some requests be in writing, and demanded to know the name of the person who wanted the record all in violation of Ohio law."
posted by jr at 10:38 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 10, 2006 #
correct, jr. Just reference ORC 149 - and you can make the request just to VIEW the records...you don't have to have them copied. All records should be kept in a manner that allows the public to view them during regular business hours.
posted by MaggieThurber at 10:51 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 10, 2006 #
You can see a 'virtual fly through' video of a possible concept for the new UT athletics complex.
posted by fequalsma73 at 03:33 A.M. EST on Fri Aug 11, 2006 #
I must have heard on 1370 that E. Grachek was against the Arena. Apparently, she was aginst the bike path. Sorry. I aplologize for my error.
As far as BGSU b-ball is concerned, I think Falcon basketball at the new downtown Arena is a possible venture, even though most of the students live on campus 25 miles away. If you do an occasional one or two games in downtown Toledo, people will come. Same is true for an occasional BGSU Falcon Hockey game/tournament.
posted by fredbruford at 05:27 A.M. EST on Fri Aug 11, 2006 #
Quick update: Toledo Blade has detailed plan about how arena might be built.
posted by tekrat at 05:06 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 11, 2006 #
This area can support a larger arena, despite the grand proclamations of the consultant. I think he is grossly underestimating the potential of what the arena do in terms of booking sporting events, circuses, concerts, etc. Fort Wayne and Grand Rapids have all kinds of events in their buildings and are very successful, and both are larger than what is being proposed. Again, Toledo is thinking small. What else is new about that? The Mud Hens could use 2 thousand more seats at Fifth Third Field. And don't get after me about where is my survey results. This is opinion. Surveys can be written any way you want them to be written.
posted by toledojim at 07:22 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 11, 2006 #
toledojim - a lot of people feel the way you do. I had an email today from someone who said we should build an arena with 15,000 seats.
The problem I have, as one of three who's going to make the decision, is that opinions and surveys won't pay the bills if the financials don't work out as predicted. (and I agree that surveys can be written to give the results you the results you want)
So I ask a question of you - if you were the one to make the decision, what information would you want to have to make sure that you made the most informed decision you could?
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:47 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 11, 2006 #
I'd still build it for 10,000 for hockey and other sports. It should be built larger than it is being planned right now. Yes, maybe I'm flying in the face of the so-called number crunchers like you. Right now, the arena being planned is going to be nothing more than an overrated Savage Hall. You're like so many other people around here, Maggie, thinking small. So what happens if the arena becomes such a smashing success in bookings, crowds, that it will have to be expanded? How much more will it cost say in 10 years, to expand it? (Look how successful Fifth Third Field is!!!) I think I'm planning more ahead than you and the consultants are. And I think optimistically and for the future, not like most of this town does (negatively and only for today).
posted by toledojim at 09:31 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 12, 2006 #
toledojim - actually, I have no opinion on the size and haven't stated one anywhere that I recall. So please don't tell me that I'm thinking small!
Personally, I'd LOVE to have a new arena - but...
My personal feelings are irrelevant to the decision I have to make as a commissioner. If I were spending MY money, it'd be different - but I'm spending the money of Lucas County citizens and I have to be extra careful when I do that - so, I crunch the numbers - and it's a good thing, too, because the other two commissioners rarely look at the cost both in the short term and in the long term. In this instance, these optimistic financials, if they don't pan out, will mean more of your tax dollars going to subsidize a facility.
You can afford to be optimistic, Toledojim, because you're not the one who'll have to explain why you either have to have an increase in taxes or shut down a facility if it fails to meet those optimistic predictions.
I'd love to build an arena and then, in a few years, have the problem of how to expand it. I can think of no better problem for the County to have - that something is so successful that it needs to be expanded. But any building can be designed to accommodate expansion at a later date. Fiscally, that'd be the more prudent thing to do with other people's money.
However, experience tells me that the problem is more likely to be how to cover its on-going costs because it can't break even. Too many people in the past have operated on optimism to the exclusion of sound fiscal policy. I believe the two need to be balanced so you get a good project that is supported by the fiscal plan.
posted by MaggieThurber at 04:12 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 12, 2006 #
toledojim said: "Look how successful Fifth Third Field is!!!"
Strange, you'd think such "success" would compel private developers and investors to foot the bill of a new sports arena by themselves. Care to explain that one, Jim?
posted by GuestZero at 10:31 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 12, 2006 #
Maggie, I voted for you four years ago but you would never get my vote now if you were running. You hide behind your sound fiscal policy thinking all you want. If the decrepit Sports Arena can stay alive for all these years, especially without any bookings in the summer months, there is no reason for a new arena to stay open for many years here that would be open 12 months a year. You are seriously underestimating the ability of the arena being properly marketed, like the consultant is doing. (I don't see circuses, ice shows, basketball and hockey tournaments mentioned in his report, some of the events being ignored in the consultant's report.)You're just ticked off with the other two commissioners and it's obvious. I won't even answer that stupid question from Guestzero. I read your bio and that's enough right there to ignore you. You cannot be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. You're a liberal, period. You can't fool me. One other thing: with no new arena, there will be more "brain drain."
posted by toledojim at 01:17 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 13, 2006 #
toledojim. Actually, the circus and ice shows are mentioned. Perhaps you need to read the report AND the exhibits. The exhibits contain the details that are supposed to support the conclusions of the report.
In fact, page 32 estimates family show performances to include:
"An average of 12 Feld shows per year, consisting of eight performances of Disney on Ice each year and eight performances of the RB/BB Circus every other year.
Eight annual performances of Sesame St. Live.
Four other family show events per year, such as the Harlen Globetrotters, Stars on Ice and other similar events."
They summarize that 24 events with an average attendance of 3,000 would give an annual attendance for these shows of 72,000.
Please make sure you have your facts straight before your criticize my numbers crunching.
And 'brain drain' will continue to occur so long as JOBS - not entertainment - are lacking in the Toledo area. Even the mayor's 'survey' showed that the vast majority of his respondents (was it 70%?) left because of a lack of JOBS - not entertainment.
As for whether or not I'm "ticked off" at my fellow commissioners...let me again state that my personal feelings are irrelevant to the discussion as to whether or not an arena can be financially self-supporting or a drain on the taxpayers of Lucas County.
I WANT a new arena - but I need to be convinced that it's the fiscally responsible thing to do - and so should you.
posted by MaggieThurber at 02:59 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 13, 2006 #
btw - when the voters in Columbus said no to paying for a new arena with tax dollars, it got built anyway - with private monies. So GZ's question to you, toledojim, is an extremely valid one.
posted by MaggieThurber at 03:04 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 13, 2006 #
You're not changing my mind on this subject, no matter what you come back with. To Zero, the private money is supposed to come from naming rights, suites, and club seats. So there is public and private money going toward the construction. Or am I not reading the Blade correctly? The private money sources must be believing in the arena to spend their money on it.
posted by toledojim at 03:37 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 13, 2006 #
toledojim - that's what I thought.
posted by MaggieThurber at 03:48 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 13, 2006 #
Is there a link to the consultant's report?
posted by toledojim at 07:55 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 13, 2006 #
yes, toledojim...both the plan and the exhibits are available here
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:03 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 13, 2006 #
toledojim admitted he's a fuckhead: "You cannot be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. You're a liberal, period. You can't fool me."
You went from a falsehood, descended into dogma, then implied that you can't fool a fool. Well, the truth is, you also cannot be a fiscal conservative by dipping into the public treasury for a private purpose. This is exactly the problem with all proposed plans for such an arena. Since you obviously support such a thing, you're not a Republican, that's for fucking sure.
With high frequency I have openly derided the use of public funds for private purposes, yet you somehow say this is just more 'liberalism'. How?
Oop! {cups hand to ear} What's that? Never mind answering my question, since I hear some more of your stupid fucking rightwingnut cohorts talking about the LIBERALS!LIBERALS!LIBERALS! on talkradio. Time for you (and your fundamental dumbass-ery) to go and worship, toledojim.
P.S. Toleodjim dodged the question like all corporate-welfare whores do, but I must repeat: How is Fifth Third Field's (so-called) success compelling private investors? The Field has been built and operating for years. Why hasn't a privately-funded arena appeared right next to it already? Gladieux has had more than enough time to be impressed by all this so-called success to tear down his Sports Arena and build another one. What's Gladieux waiting on?
posted by GuestZero at 11:23 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 13, 2006 #
GZ - regardless of Toledojim's answer...why would any private entity step up and assume such a risk when so many politicians are falling over themselves to do it instead?
posted by MaggieThurber at 11:43 A.M. EST on Mon Aug 14, 2006 #
Great question Maggie. Another question is if there is a market for this in Toledo (and I hope there is) why would any of it be funded with tax dollars in lieu of developers paying for it themselves?
The only front row seat I had for a project of this type was http://www.schottensteincenter.com/sections/arenainfo/history.asp There was no major public funding and the thing got built.
posted by katie82640 at 04:05 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 14, 2006 #
Guestzero, you are the liberal one and I am not. I don't belong to either political party. I'm independent. I'm mostly conservative but I can also be a little bit of a liberal on occasion. I can tell you're the liberal: you resort to obscene name-calling when you can't win in the arena of ideas. Most, if not all, liberals go down the name-calling road when they can't offer an idea without obscenities attached to them. Frankly, I'd love to see the arena built with more private money, but that's likely not going to happen. Toledo does not have the money like Columbus, Grand Rapids and Detroit.
posted by toledojim at 06:33 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 14, 2006 #
Thank you for the link, Maggie. I couldn't find it on local media web sites. That's where I looked first. That would have been a grea place to post them.
posted by toledojim at 06:35 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 14, 2006 #
One other point, Guest Zero: You were expecting Gladieux to build it? Get real. He's been trying for years since his father died to unload the dump on One Main Street. He found a sucker: the taxpayers. He'll never put a nickel of his own money into a new arena. Did he ever really renovate it? Same old chairs that have a dozen coats of paint on them. So he put in a new concession stand once, and a few years ago fixed up the Storm's locker room (which needed it!). The roof his father fixed in the 1990s now looks like peeling duct tape. The place was a dump for the last 35 years and he should have fixed it back then and even more often.
posted by toledojim at 06:40 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 14, 2006 #
How is Fifth Third Field's (so-called) success compelling private investors? The Field has been built and operating for years. Why hasn't a privately-funded arena appeared right next to it already?
Probably because the arena, if profitable, doesn't generate enough of a return to negate the risk. The arena can be profitable, yet not have any investors interested because of the size of the investment and the time that capital will be tied up.
posted by thenick at 07:09 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 14, 2006 #
If a single dime of public money needs to be spent in order to build a new and improved Sports Arena, or any other entertainment venue, I am solidly against it.
Here's the conservative viewpoint of entertainment investments:
IF IT IS GOOD, THEY WILL COME. (Think Field of Dreams as you read that sentence.)
The greedy side of mankind adds the following : IF WE CAN GET THE PUBLIC TO PAY FOR IT, SO MUCH THE BETTER! The foregoing is not a political viewpoint, it is an OPPORTUNISTIC viewpoint. OPPORTUNISM knows no boundaries, much like GREED, and much like every other negative aspect of humanity.
If one thinks that the use of public money for this or similar purposes is OK, then I must assume that one also thinks that is OK for Rome to have used slaves in the construction and maintenance of the Coliseum.
Slavery may be a harsh term for this circumstance. One is given the opportunity to accept this yoke if one is given the opportunity to vote upon this issue. It also matters if one actually understands the scope of the yoke being considered. Choice counts. It is important that the citizenry is sufficiently informed as the nature of the proposed yoke.
Good luck with that. I have EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE as to the OUTRIGHT LIES which are presented to the citizenry native to the region of a proposed entertainment venue.
If one thinks my connection to the slavery of Rome is vaporous, then one has forgotten the connection between work and money. If some of one's work (in the form of payroll tax deductions $$$) goes to fund an entertainment venue, be assured that one is indeed WORKING to build that venue. It becomes slavery when one's CHOICE at the voting booth is marginalized by INTENTIONAL LIES by the project's promoters.
Finally, does one really wish to WORK to build a venue, and then PAY to attend that venue?
posted by AirTrainer at 08:38 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 14, 2006 #
I hate when I rush through my typing!
6th paragraph, last sentence should read:
It is important that the citizenry is sufficiently informed as TO the nature of the proposed yoke.
posted by AirTrainer at 08:41 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 14, 2006 #
toledojim - I don't know where you came from but you have things pegged wrong. And quite a few of them.
First of all, GZ's economic policies are QUITE conservative and VERY obvious. He has posted many, many times about a desire to see conservative spending in government.
Also - you pursue the ONLY county commissioner we have who has consistently voted against the good old boy machine.
You need to research, or rethink your position. You're either grossly uninformed or just a jerk.
posted by katie82640 at 08:57 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 14, 2006 #
Katie - I don't mind the comments from Toledojim...I doubt he could have a similar discussion with my collegues.
IMHO, he's emotionally invested in the project and hadn't yet balanced that emotion with the details in the report. Following our 'conversation,' he asked for the links. I truly hope he reads the report and the exhibits. I can't imagine anyone reading these documents and NOT having at least one question. So I welcome that!
posted by MaggieThurber at 06:10 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 15, 2006 #
My problem is, if that public money isnt used for an arena, then old petey and tina will just give it to someone else. (maggie excluded, becasue she votes no anyway 8-)
posted by tm at 09:37 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 15, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
