(05-30-2013 11:22 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 12:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Run

Actually, we are going backwards. According to the contractor, without the additional money, the stadium will have to scrap the third deck in right field, which was supposed to include a bar and skywalk.

I meant we are not going to take a step backward after all that has been done and committed.

This is not idea. But even if it was, you'll never be happy; so what's the point?

Your own post says that the park will cost 52 Million when the estimated cost was supposed to be 40 million.

I bet my buddies that it would go over 40 million.

(05-31-2013 12:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 11:22 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 12:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Run

Actually, we are going backwards. According to the contractor, without the additional money, the stadium will have to scrap the third deck in right field, which was supposed to include a bar and skywalk.

I meant we are not going to take a step backward after all that has been done and committed.

This is not idea. But even if it was, you'll never be happy; so what's the point?

Your own post says that the park will cost 52 Million when the estimated cost was supposed to be 50 million.

I bet my buddies that it would go over 50 million.

http://home.elpasotexas.gov/_documents/F...llpark.pdf

mistabinks

I don't disagree that many Las Vegas residents want triple A baseball. But that isn't why they are willing to spend 60 million.

The reason why is because no city that has legal gambling can have major league team.

Therefore, Las Vegas has the capital to have major league baseball but not the permission.

Apples and Oranges.

(05-31-2013 12:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 11:22 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 12:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Run

Actually, we are going backwards. According to the contractor, without the additional money, the stadium will have to scrap the third deck in right field, which was supposed to include a bar and skywalk.

I meant we are not going to take a step backward after all that has been done and committed.

This is not ideal. But even if it was, you'll never be happy; so what's the point?

Your own post says that the park will cost 52 Million when the estimated cost was supposed to be 40 million.

I bet my buddies that it would go over 40 million.

I just said, this is not ideal. WTF is your point?

Like I also said, you'll never be happy. I offered to pay you your portion in 20 bucks so your quality of life won't be affected.

The stadium was always going to cost 52 million. The City of El Paso received State approval to spend up to 57 million. The City stuck to the 52 million figure.

Or most progressive Cities know MiLB is vital to booming downtown and quality of life. Apple to apple.

(05-31-2013 04:30 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  Or most progressive Cities know MiLB is vital to booming downtown and quality of life. Apple to apple.

And you would be incorrect. Even the Brookings Institute has released reports that show that sports stadiums in downtown cities do not have any significant economic impact.

In our forthcoming Brookings book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, we and 15 collaborators examine the local economic development argument from all angles: case studies of the effect of specific facilities, as well as comparisons among cities and even neighborhoods that have and have not sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into sports development. In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articl...taxes-noll

(05-31-2013 04:28 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  The stadium was always going to cost 52 million. The City of El Paso received State approval to spend up to 57 million. The City stuck to the 52 million figure.

That is strange considering that Courtney Nilan is quoted in the times as saying that they promised the public a stadium for less than 50 million and she will be damned if we spend a penny more.

Why would she say that if the stadium was always going to cost 52 million?

(05-31-2013 11:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 04:28 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  The stadium was always going to cost 52 million. The City of El Paso received State approval to spend up to 57 million. The City stuck to the 52 million figure.

That is strange considering that Courtney Nilan is quoted in the times as saying that they promised the public a stadium for less than 50 million and she will be damned if we spend a penny more.

Why would she say that if the stadium was always going to cost 52 million?

Ask her.

My guess is she was simply rounding for the sake of brevity. The point being the City Planner and Project Developer were not going to get the extra then million. For example, the number "60 million" was used quite a bit but that was never the actual number, 57 million was.

There is no explanation for her saying "less than 50 million" assuming she actually said that.

(05-31-2013 11:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 04:30 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  Or most progressive Cities know MiLB is vital to booming downtown and quality of life. Apple to apple.

And you would be incorrect. Even the Brookings Institute has released reports that show that sports stadiums in downtown cities do not have any significant economic impact.

In our forthcoming Brookings book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, we and 15 collaborators examine the local economic development argument from all angles: case studies of the effect of specific facilities, as well as comparisons among cities and even neighborhoods that have and have not sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into sports development. In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articl...taxes-noll

Well, we have been through this before. The naysayers cling to that study as I have seen it on a few other forums as well.

Sometimes you just have to take a step back and look at the sources. Myself, I don't think a baseball stadium on it's own is going to revitalize any downtown. So you can take a study, like the above, and crunch the very specific numbers.

Let's look at El Paso for example. The City is going to own the stadium. MountainStar is going to own the team. A lot of naysayers are fundamentally wrong when they start preaching numbers. The City is not going to get 52 million dollars back from baseball. So in number form, you can say this is a money loser. The stadium could be sold out every single night and it wouldn't benefit "the City" because MountainStar owns the team and keeps the profits (which they will be donating).

It is about the things the very specific numbers don't show. But we have already talked about this before.

(06-01-2013 12:52 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 11:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 04:30 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  Or most progressive Cities know MiLB is vital to booming downtown and quality of life. Apple to apple.

And you would be incorrect. Even the Brookings Institute has released reports that show that sports stadiums in downtown cities do not have any significant economic impact.

In our forthcoming Brookings book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, we and 15 collaborators examine the local economic development argument from all angles: case studies of the effect of specific facilities, as well as comparisons among cities and even neighborhoods that have and have not sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into sports development. In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articl...taxes-noll

Well, we have been through this before. The naysayers cling to that study as I have seen it on a few other forums as well.

Sometimes you just have to take a step back and look at the sources. Myself, I don't think a baseball stadium on it's own is going to revitalize any downtown. So you can take a study, like the above, and crunch the very specific numbers.

Let's look at El Paso for example. The City is going to own the stadium. MountainStar is going to own the team. A lot of naysayers are fundamentally wrong when they start preaching numbers. The City is not going to get 52 million dollars back from baseball. So in number form, you can say this is a money loser. The stadium could be sold out every single night and it wouldn't benefit "the City" because MountainStar owns the team and keeps the profits (which they will be donating).

It is about the things the very specific numbers don't show. But we have already talked about this before.

Yes, we have been over this before. There's the brooking institute and countless other studies. And then their's your theory.

Hey but don't let the facts distract you from that. LOL

Her is her actual quote along with an interesting bit of information on the construction cost.

"I'll be damned if we don't deliver the project we promised to the community," Niland said. "And we are not going
Advertisement

to do it for a penny more."
The City Council voted 5 to 3 to sell $52.8 million in bonds to finance the Triple-A baseball stadium now under construction. City Reps. Emma Acosta, Eddie Holguin and Carl Robinson voting against it.
From the approved bonds, $10 million will pay for the ballpark design and pre-construction costs and $40 million will go toward construction as originally planned. Another $1.8 million will pay the cost for the sale of the bonds and $1 million will go toward public art as is required by city ordinance for capital projects.

There you go. You just posted information that supports what I have been saying all along. I am assuming you realize that.

(06-01-2013 10:10 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yes, we have been over this before. There's the brooking institute and countless other studies. And then their's your theory.

Hey but don't let the facts distract you from that. LOL

Has it come to this? Flailing? Massive exaggeration? Seeing what sticks?

Countless studies? You do know what countless indicates? How about maybe a handful more?

Crying about me wanting you to support your claims. Crying that opinions can't be sourced? You have your right to your opinion. It is your claims that I expect you to be able to support. Everytime you actually post real info, you end up supporting my case.

Some people say stadiums rejuvenate downtowns. Others say they don't. Neither warrants a "don't let the facts distract you" type response. They are both studies/opinions and neither can be labeled as a fact.

I get on your case because your details are always lacking. Too many "they said," "they lied," "most El Pasoans." That is why your posts are so easy to shred and prove inaccurate. Like I said, you have your value as you keep the board lively. You are better than this post though. This post was the equivalent of a Lebron James flop.

Okay fine. Maybe it's only a hand full of studies.

Regardless, it's a hand full of studies vs. your theory.

Do you really think your theory measured up to those studies?

Mistabinks

If nothing has changed. Why is city council so upset?

I'm humbled. It's not 'my theory' though. I haven't presented any theories. I've simply kept up with the facts of the stadium and remained optimistic.

Some on council were upset because the city planner and the project manager wanted 5 additional million for contingency spending.

(06-01-2013 06:22 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  Some on council were upset because the city planner and the project manager wanted 5 additional million for contingency spending.

So what do you think the project is going to leave out of the stadium?

I'm sure the stadium will do well and attendance will be good for a while. However, as with Cohen Stadium. I don't see it being a long term success.