[/php][/quote]

Like the blue and gray seats.

Interesting story how the Alamodome was built. The city was approached by a group of Argentine investors in the 1980s. They had put together a business model to develop a stadium without so many of the bells and whistles that pro teams were demanding at the time. Their projections showed it profitable and paying back the money in about 10 years or so. They needed the City onboard, becuase the area where they wanted to build it was an old railroad yard, and under Texas law once a piece of property is dedicated to public utility (including railroad) use, it cannot be converted to another purpose without a government condmenation proceeding. So the idea was for the City to exercise its eminent domain powers, pay full market price to the railroad, and then sell it to the investors at their cost. Cisneros was mayor at the time, and a friend of mine was on his staff and got tasked with reviewing the proposal. Turned out that the economics were good, but there was one little issue--the money was drug money being laundered. So Cisneros decided that the City would take the plans away from the "investors" and build it, and dare them to sue. They didn't, the City got the stadium. As projected, it was profitable from the start and paid back everything in about 10 years. So now the City has a very useful stadium without any debt hanging over their heads.

Those who know me know that I'm not much of a fan of democrats in general (only people I hate worse than republicans, basically). But I worked with Cisneros on several things and I though he was a VERY bright and capable guy. I'm really sorry he couldn't keep his pants on, because I think he was a rising star who would have been good for the country.

(10-12-2013 02:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Interesting story how the Alamodome was built. The city was approached by a group of Argentine investors in the 1980s. They had put together a business model to develop a stadium without so many of the bells and whistles that pro teams were demanding at the time. Their projections showed it profitable and paying back the money in about 10 years or so. They needed the City onboard, becuase the area where they wanted to build it was an old railroad yard, and under Texas law once a piece of property is dedicated to public utility (including railroad) use, it cannot be converted to another purpose without a government condmenation proceeding. So the idea was for the City to exercise its eminent domain powers, pay full market price to the railroad, and then sell it to the investors at their cost. Cisneros was mayor at the time, and a friend of mine was on his staff and got tasked with reviewing the proposal. Turned out that the economics were good, but there was one little issue--the money was drug money being laundered. So Cisneros decided that the City would take the plans away from the "investors" and build it, and dare them to sue. They didn't, the City got the stadium. As projected, it was profitable from the start and paid back everything in about 10 years. So now the City has a very useful stadium without any debt hanging over their heads.

Those who know me know that I'm not much of a fan of democrats in general (only people I hate worse than republicans, basically). But I worked with Cisneros on several things and I though he was a VERY bright and capable guy. I'm really sorry he couldn't keep his pants on, because I think he was a rising star who would have been good for the country.

Very interesting. It reminds me of the FargoDome 3 times larger and Saavis Center where the Blues play. Nothing fancy, painted cinder block hallways But lots of concessions and good staff.

Owls just went in after warm ups.
For what it's worth... Ross running plays and catching passes. Looked like the coaches were watching him closely.

They have a great gameday atmosphere. I hope one day Rice can match it.

Many of the UTSA fans near me were gone after half time, a lot more had left by the end of the third, very few left to support the 4th quarter rally.

(10-12-2013 02:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Interesting story how the Alamodome was built. The city was approached by a group of Argentine investors in the 1980s. They had put together a business model to develop a stadium without so many of the bells and whistles that pro teams were demanding at the time. Their projections showed it profitable and paying back the money in about 10 years or so. They needed the City onboard, becuase the area where they wanted to build it was an old railroad yard, and under Texas law once a piece of property is dedicated to public utility (including railroad) use, it cannot be converted to another purpose without a government condmenation proceeding. So the idea was for the City to exercise its eminent domain powers, pay full market price to the railroad, and then sell it to the investors at their cost. Cisneros was mayor at the time, and a friend of mine was on his staff and got tasked with reviewing the proposal. Turned out that the economics were good, but there was one little issue--the money was drug money being laundered. So Cisneros decided that the City would take the plans away from the "investors" and build it, and dare them to sue. They didn't, the City got the stadium. As projected, it was profitable from the start and paid back everything in about 10 years. So now the City has a very useful stadium without any debt hanging over their heads.

Those who know me know that I'm not much of a fan of democrats in general (only people I hate worse than republicans, basically). But I worked with Cisneros on several things and I though he was a VERY bright and capable guy. I'm really sorry he couldn't keep his pants on, because I think he was a rising star who would have been good for the country.

Interesting story, but it raises some thoughts:
1) I don't think the City of San Antonio (or any government entity) can use eminent domain powers on railroad property, especially not the legacy railroad corporations. A few US Supreme Court cases have established that the legacy railroads are immune to eminent domain proceedings. The reasons are a) due to a notion of essential national infrastructure (even in private hands) and b) the railroads historically having the SC in their pocket... Alas, the railroads in recent decades are heavily into the real estate business, and I suspect they were happy to sell at a good price. The City certainly could have helped with land assembly, but I don't think they could have forced the railroads to sell the land.

2) I always thought the conventional wisdom perceived the Alamodome as a white elephant bust. Wasn't it primarily intended to attract a NFL team that never came. It's far too big for most other sports/performance events. Do conventions really need so much cavernous space? Claims for stadiums as convention halls tend to have lousy economics. There are cheaper ways to build a hangar for convention floor space.

The Alamodome did get the Spurs for nine years, and I suspect that alone kept the project viable. Stadium economics tend to be lousy for the public entities that sponsor them, but I suppose the Alamodome's $186 million pricetag was quite reasonable. It was Toronto's Skydome of the same era that blew the lid off any pragmatic approach to stadium finance. The Skydome was so expensive with its retractable roof that it was literally impossible to ever repay the bond without public subsidy, even with decades of hypothetical sellouts. Unfortunately, newer stadia are more like the Skydome than the Alamodome.

3) The post reminded me of the tragedy of Henry Cisneros. I remember when he was a rising star, and it seemed he could be a major national political figure, even perhaps attaining the White House. He had talent, and he could have been a better version of Obama with more grassroots bonafides and actual accomplishments. I am not sure the younger generation even knows who he is.

(10-13-2013 04:21 AM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  Interesting story, but it raises some thoughts:
1) I don't think the City of San Antonio (or any government entity) can use eminent domain powers on railroad property, especially not the legacy railroad corporations. A few US Supreme Court cases have established that the legacy railroads are immune to eminent domain proceedings. The reasons are a) due to a notion of essential national infrastructure (even in private hands) and b) the railroads historically having the SC in their pocket... Alas, the railroads in recent decades are heavily into the real estate business, and I suspect they were happy to sell at a good price. The City certainly could have helped with land assembly, but I don't think they could have forced the railroads to sell the land.
2) I always thought the conventional wisdom perceived the Alamodome as a white elephant bust. Wasn't it primarily intended to attract a NFL team that never came. It's far too big for most other sports/performance events. Do conventions really need so much cavernous space? Claims for stadiums as convention halls tend to have lousy economics. There are cheaper ways to build a hangar for convention floor space.
The Alamodome did get the Spurs for nine years, and I suspect that alone kept the project viable. Stadium economics tend to be lousy for the public entities that sponsor them, but I suppose the Alamodome's $186 million pricetag was quite reasonable. It was Toronto's Skydome of the same era that blew the lid off any pragmatic approach to stadium finance. The Skydome was so expensive with its retractable roof that it was literally impossible to ever repay the bond without public subsidy, even with decades of hypothetical sellouts. Unfortunately, newer stadia are more like the Skydome than the Alamodome.
3) The post reminded me of the tragedy of Henry Cisneros. I remember when he was a rising star, and it seemed he could be a major national political figure, even perhaps attaining the White House. He had talent, and he could have been a better version of Obama with more grassroots bonafides and actual accomplishments. I am not sure the younger generation even knows who he is.

Point number 1 would apply in the case of an active railroad yard. This was an abandoned rail yard. The railroad was a willing seller and the stadium group were willing buyers, but state law prevented repurposing the property without the eminent domain procedure.

With respect to point number 2, there was the goal of an NFL team and that didn't happen (or hasn't yet), but Alamodome was still an economic success. That was the point. Without all the expensive bells and whistles, a stadium can succeed economically even if it doesn't attract an NFL team.

As for 3, I wouldn't equate Cisneros and Obama. Perhaps you mean in the sense that both possessed charisma, and I would agree on that. But I would have voted for Cisneros, whereas I could never vote for Obama.