(06-22-2013 03:49 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  52.8 million dollars. What was the question or doubt? Heres-say? Rumors? Crab talk? Doesn't matter. It was 52.8 million dollars. But but but Susie Byrd said something else during an interview. Doesn't matter. 52.8 million dollars.

It is now officially 60.8 million dollars now that City Hall has been demolished and a firm design could be put into place. You should be a happy camper if your only point was the actual cost. It will now cost the City less with MountainStar's 12.1 million infusion.

Nothing to be crabby about now if the actual cost was your only point.

So just so I have this straight. It was 52.8 but now it's 60.8. Does that include interest and the price of relocating City Hall?

(06-23-2013 12:53 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So just so I have this straight. It was 52.8 but now it's 60.8. Does that include interest and the price of relocating City Hall?

You do not know the answer to those questions?

and "LOL," we are now going to dig out feet into the ground and complain about interest? Well, good thing the HOT tax is now estimated to generate an extra 25 million dollars. That should cover your interest. City Hall is a moot point to me. It was going to be relocated regardless under Joyce Wilson's reign regardless of baseball. Choose your reply wisely Mr. Fitbud. There is a thread on the first page that hasn't been updated lately where various downtown plans are listed that all call for the relocation of City Hall. These were pre baseball plans.

I'm not complaining. I just don't think people consider the interest as part of the cost of the stadium.

Shouldn't it be?

Why?

(06-24-2013 12:14 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  Why?

Because when ever I buy something that requires me to take out a loan, I consider the interest to be part of the cost and that influences whether or not I make the purchase.

Doesn't everyone do that?

(06-24-2013 03:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 12:14 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  Why?

Because when ever I buy something that requires me to take out a loan, I consider the interest to be part of the cost and that influences whether or not I make the purchase.

Doesn't everyone do that?

Rates are at an all-time low.
In any case, they are market-driven

(06-24-2013 03:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 12:14 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  Why?

Because when ever I buy something that requires me to take out a loan, I consider the interest to be part of the cost and that influences whether or not I make the purchase.

Doesn't everyone do that?

Are we talking about everyone or are we talking about local government?

Okay, now I get it, the guy who has been complaining about a property tax increase is now complaining about bond interest... Fit, you have no leg to stand on. You sound like a socialist, kind of odd since you called everyone a liberal... The road you drove today to get to work, how was that paid?

(06-25-2013 01:18 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  Okay, now I get it, the guy who has been complaining about a property tax increase is now complaining about bond interest... Fit, you have no leg to stand on. You sound like a socialist, kind of odd since you called everyone a liberal... The road you drove today to get to work, how was that paid?

A socialist would be okay with the government subsidizing everything.

That is what you seem to be okay with.

So who is the socialist?

The road I drove on today was paid for by tax payer money. I'm fine with that because it is necessary for everyone's daily lives.

So tell my why the stadium is necessary for everyone's daily lives?

(06-26-2013 01:21 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 01:18 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  Okay, now I get it, the guy who has been complaining about a property tax increase is now complaining about bond interest... Fit, you have no leg to stand on. You sound like a socialist, kind of odd since you called everyone a liberal... The road you drove today to get to work, how was that paid?

A socialist would be okay with the government subsidizing everything.

That is what you seem to be okay with.

So who is the socialist?

The road I drove on today was paid for by tax payer money. I'm fine with that because it is necessary for everyone's daily lives.

So tell my why the stadium is necessary for everyone's daily lives?

you are a socialist, no other way to cut it... You need the government to provide for you. That is the reason you object to paying anything...

The stadium is necessary for the people who have been paying your way... Time to grow up, fit.

also, your road was paid courtesy of a bond

(06-26-2013 05:24 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 01:21 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 01:18 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  Okay, now I get it, the guy who has been complaining about a property tax increase is now complaining about bond interest... Fit, you have no leg to stand on. You sound like a socialist, kind of odd since you called everyone a liberal... The road you drove today to get to work, how was that paid?

A socialist would be okay with the government subsidizing everything.

That is what you seem to be okay with.

So who is the socialist?

The road I drove on today was paid for by tax payer money. I'm fine with that because it is necessary for everyone's daily lives.

So tell my why the stadium is necessary for everyone's daily lives?

you are a socialist, no other way to cut it... You need the government to provide for you. That is the reason you object to paying anything...

The stadium is necessary for the people who have been paying your way... Time to grow up, fit.

also, your road was paid courtesy of a bond

I need the government to pay for me? I'm not the one asking the government to build me a baseball stadium.

On the contrary. I believe in capitalism and if they want to buy a baseball team, they should be willing to build their own stadium and not asking tax payers to do it for them.

I think you need a lesson in politics.

What percentage of professional teams own a baseball stadium?

(06-26-2013 11:47 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  What percentage of professional teams own a baseball stadium?

That is beside the point.

The question should be

Is asking the government to subsidize your business venture a capitalistic or socialistic approach?

LOL. That is a new low.

"That is beside the point"

"The question should be"

Wow. Whiffed again. It's a bad day to be in the alternative opinion business.

how much money is coming out of your pocket for the stadium, fit?

(06-27-2013 12:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 11:47 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  What percentage of professional teams own a baseball stadium?

That is beside the point.

The question should be

Is asking the government to subsidize a sports facility a common thing?

Fixed it for you.

(06-28-2013 07:25 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 12:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 11:47 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  What percentage of professional teams own a baseball stadium?

That is beside the point.

The question should be

Is asking the government to subsidize a sports facility a common thing?

Fixed it for you.

The answer would be yes. And if you asked if said stadiums helped the local economy, the answer would be no.

(06-29-2013 02:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 07:25 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 12:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 11:47 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  What percentage of professional teams own a baseball stadium?

That is beside the point.

The question should be

Is asking the government to subsidize a sports facility a common thing?

Fixed it for you.

The answer would be yes. And if you asked if said stadiums helped the local economy, the answer would be no.

How much money is coming out of your pocket for the stadium? Why have you dodged that question? Because you know that every study that has opposed the economic effect of new stadiums has centered their main argument on the reduction of disposable income by the local community through taxes. The stadium will not use local taxes to construct the stadium, as it will fund most of it's cost through the HOT tax and the rest by Mountain Star. You no longer have a leg to stand on, because we will not be using property nor local sales tax to fund the stadium, therefore, local disposable income will not be reduced.

(06-29-2013 02:58 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(06-29-2013 02:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 07:25 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 12:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 11:47 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  What percentage of professional teams own a baseball stadium?

That is beside the point.

The question should be

Is asking the government to subsidize a sports facility a common thing?

Fixed it for you.

The answer would be yes. And if you asked if said stadiums helped the local economy, the answer would be no.

How much money is coming out of your pocket for the stadium? Why have you dodged that question? Because you know that every study that has opposed the economic effect of new stadiums has centered their main argument on the reduction of disposable income by the local community through taxes. The stadium will not use local taxes to construct the stadium, as it will fund most of it's cost through the HOT tax and the rest by Mountain Star. You no longer have a leg to stand on, because we will not be using property nor local sales tax to fund the stadium, therefore, local disposable income will not be reduced.

Even if the cost of the stadium doesn't come directly from my pocket that doesn't mean that it is bringing in money from somewhere other than El Paso.

The few thousand people that frequent Diablo games and spend money in the surrounding eateries around Cohen will now simply spend their money downtown.

So the stadium hasn't created new money but simply transfered the economic wealth from one place to another.

Day in and day out, it's still predominately the same El Pasoans spending their money on a baseball game rather than a movie.

So where is the economic driver?

It isn't there.


But go ahead and drink the juice and believe that a downtown stadium is going to transform El Paso even though it has proven to not do a darn thing for any other city on the planet.

I'm just adding a couple off the top of my head

Don't forget the average independent baseball player makes about $3,000 a year (5 months * $600/month), while the average AAA player makes over $40,000 an increase of over 1300% (that also holds true for the out of town teams coming so you can multiply that one economic effect by two). Not to mention the independent players contribute almost nothing to property tax revenue as they are hosted by local families.

Believe it or not, property values will not drop in the north east because the Diablos are no longer there. property values in downtown are increasing, therefore, increasing revenue from property tax.

Don't forget (because you said it yourself), nobody is attending Diablos games, so using your logic, north east eateries will not be suffering, while downtown eateries would receive an increase in traffic. Don't forget the increase in income to the local economy in the construction project alone.

The ultimate goal is to get as much disposable income spent in El Paso as it can, rather than spending it out of town, and you can't do that if you have no big attractions.

But go ahead and drink the juice and believe your studies all you want, because their main argument has already been blown out the window