MP Message Board
MP Message Board
Home | Profile | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
 All Forums
 Message Board
 MavPuck.com Other Sports Forum
 Dear "Save Rosenblatt" People
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 107

MavRick
A Better Fan Than You

USA
-3935 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2007 :  6:24:33 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by admin

[quote]Which'll mean that the estimated $40 million generated in annual revenue will be "a wash" for a number of years.



Well, no, and this post will have HOCKEY CONTENT.

It's foolish to assume Fahey hasn't thought this through. He's thinking legacy, and he's not about to jeopardize the city's AAA bond rating by over borrowing. I figure $100MM of the $150-200MM will come from private contributions. 50 million from the Peter Kiewit foundation, minimum. The city fathers will pour their money into this. They did half of the Qwest Center and they'll do half of the ballpark. So figure we got to do $100 million in bond revenue, max. We have 20 years to pay that back, 20 years on the contract, boom. Amortize 100 mill over 20 years at municipal bond rates - 7 or 8 million per year, principal and interest -- and at a 40 million per year financial impact to the city, certain to grow over time, we're huge money ahead.

And lest we get the "how can we do this without separated sewers and with homeless people" argument, let us not forget that it it takes people to build and staff these venues, and the 40 mil in Series impact goes to people in transportation, lodging, foodservice -- industries where lots of entry-level jobs are created. So I don't buy the moral argument, thank you very much.

Finally, hockey content. Unfortnuately, the Big Money needed to do the park is going to empty the donor pipeline for athletic venues for a while. A new ice arena is off the table for the next 10 years.



"Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, Supreme Court of the United States (1943)
Go to Top of Page

twiztid1
Sophomore Mav

288 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2007 :  8:32:43 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I love this plan! I just hope it has a very modern design that fits in with the Qwest Center. An old school brick stadium might look out of place.
Go to Top of Page

admin
U!N!O!

10827 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2007 :  11:00:13 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I still think the idea of getting 20 years -- no matter how many millions of dollars we plunk down on a new stadium -- is going to be difficult.

I respect Mayor Fahey and his goal of keeping the event here until the end of time. But that isn't the way the NCAA typically plays.

The NCAA is known for doing goofy things (that might lose them revenue) just because. They have put the NCAA Frozen Four in places like Anaheim (and in a few years, Tampa) because they wanted to do something different -- even though they'd make considerably more revenue if they held it in Minnesota or Boston every year.

This is a game of high-stakes poker the mayor is playing. Anyone sitting in the office would do the same thing, but at some point we'll have to put a stop to the arms race. Maybe not this time around, but at some point down the road.

The reason being is that this thing has escalated significantly in the past few months.

It started out as a 9,000-seat facility that the BlueJays and Royals would also be amenable to playing in (and investing in). They were going to truck-in temp seats to bring the capacity to around 30,000 when the CWS was in town.

That sounded like a good deal. Then -- during CWS week -- the NCAA snaps their fingers and says we need a facility with ~30,000 fixed seats. The NCAA also expresses disapproval that there are houses surrounding Rosenblatt (heaven forbid) and they want a facility that is a "clean zone" (essentially with vendors selling only NCAA approved merchandise, concessions and promotions).

In 2001, Pittsburgh built a new stadium for the Pirates. It seats 38,000 and cost $231 million.

Essentially, we are going to do the same thing for a 10-day event every year.

The Royals haven't been involved in any of this. I am guessing we'll keep that franchise here, but I don't know that for sure -- our track record with minor league and semi-pro teams ain't the greatest. The BlueJays are probably still looking at a new small ballpark of their own in downtown to replace their aging stadium.

I'm not denying the economic impact of the event.

I just want you all to understand that it isn't like that revenue is going "directly" into city government.

Economic impact is indirect. I am sure a lot of it goes across the river to Council Bluffs and the casinos (even more will go over there once the pedestrian bridge across the Missouri is done). But will we see any of the money they collect from that "sin tax"?

Not directly.

The beauty of the CWS up until this point is that we've been in a position to walk away if need be. Sure, it'd be a bitter pill to swallow financially, but we haven't invested so much money in the behemoth (that is Rosenblatt) that we couldn't survive.

Once you build a $150 to $200 million facility -- no matter how much private money you get -- you are even more firmly committed to keeping the event here. Which means we'll go even further to meet the NCAA's demands in the future.

That's what is scary.

This isn't a facility that'll house an MLB franchise -- yet it will be a facility somewhat on par with its major league counterparts in terms of amenities. We're willing to build that for 10 days each year.

That either shows how incredibly dedicated or sincere we are, or it shows we're insane. I haven't figured out which, yet.

We talk a good talk about bargaining with the NCAA, but negotiations involve "give and take." I don't see the NCAA having to give in on any of this. They say, "jump" and we say,"how high?"

As I said earlier, I really enjoy this event every year.

I don't know how many cities would be willing to build a smallish MLB-type ballpark to basically secure one event every year.

The city has already made up its mind on this and I am fine with that.

But at some point we'll reach the tipping point. We need to be careful going forward.

Keep in mind that a lot of the folks making these decisions (like Fahey) won't even be around in 20 years.
Go to Top of Page

mrkaline
Mav Scout in Indiana

Poland
1475 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2007 :  11:21:49 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bring the CWS to Indianapolis, home of the NCAA (until another city pimp slaps us....)

Then again, with Indy getting almost every March Madness tourney, maybe getting the CWS would be greedy.

"Greed is good"
Gordon
Go to Top of Page

dartben
Sophomore Mav

404 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2007 :  4:13:45 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by admin

The beauty of the CWS up until this point is that we've been in a position to walk away if need be. Sure, it'd be a bitter pill to swallow financially, but we haven't invested so much money in the behemoth (that is Rosenblatt) that we couldn't survive.


Yeah, because everyone is lining up to be the politician who stands up to the NCAA and walks away from the CWS because of the cost.

Please, if that happened the mayor's political career is over, probably 3/4ths of the city council will be out, and I'm guessing the OPPD and MUD directors will get canned too just because. Omaha hasn't been in a position to walk away from the CWS for about 20 years or so.
Go to Top of Page

admin
U!N!O!

10827 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2007 :  4:23:12 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Go to Top of Page

Bigredmed
Senior Mav

1574 Posts

Posted - 09/23/2007 :  12:17:35 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The problem is in the financing. Revenue bonds and private donations are being tauted. These are the same sources that have so reliably financed the Qwest and the Hilton. Both projects make money, yet after all the private partners get paid, we still get stuck with a bill every year.

We are looking at 1.5 B in sewer repairs. We are looking at 300 M in unfunded pension loabilities. We are looking at a tax base that could go Saint Louis on us in a flash (ever taken the pulse of people who live west of 120th street?).

If the financing leaves the tax payers holding another bag, we are in trouble.
Go to Top of Page

admin
U!N!O!

10827 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  12:13:59 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Fahey wants to avoid a vote on the topic, and instead fund it with revenue bonds and donations (as bigredmed pointed out).

He says he fears that it'd become a contentious issue in the community if it is put to a vote.

I admire his desire to avoid hiking property taxes, but you'd think that something as important as this should be voted on by the people it effects the most. If it really is important to Omahans, they should be willing to foot part of the bill.

We voted on the convention center/arena. Granted, that was before 9/11 and before the ensuing recession, but city leaders -- led by Mayor Daub -- got wide-ranging support for the proposal. That was after a couple of previous failed attempts (one that even included securing state funding).

I know a lot of people who thought Daub was very abrasive, but the man got things done. He really spearheaded the arena effort and was a vital force in the development downtown.

Fahey seems like a very amicable man, but the fact that he wants to avoid public debate speaks volumes to me. He really hasn't had a lot of "marquee" accomplishments during his tenure as mayor. He has seemingly been more of a solid/caretaker sort of leader.

Here are a couple of concerns that I have using revenue from the event and donations to fund the bonds:

- That'll inevitably mean that the city (via MECA) will try and milk more money out of all the facilities they currently control -- which includes the Qwest Center and the Civic Auditorium. Once they control the new park, they'll milk that as well. What that'll potentially mean is an increase in rental fees on various interests and an increase in seat taxes on attendees. And it could also effect concession and parking pricing.

- Using revenue to pay off the bonds will likely mean an increase in mandatory "seat donations" at the CWS including seat-licensing schemes similar to those employed by MECA at the Qwest Center -- where you purchase a seat and you own it for all events.

- It will also likely mean the end of GA ticket books, or at the very least it'll mean an end to keeping GA seats more affordable. It might usher in an era of having the entire facility filled with reserved seating and season tickets to the event.

- The Qwest Center recently completed renovations to add more seats to the north end above the Bud Bar. This was in response to a need for an increase in capacity. It was a fairly extensive renovation for a facility built in 2003, but it was obvious they built the facility with this eventuality in mind.

You wonder if they'll build a new baseball stadium without all the things they want initially, and then come back to taxpayers and ask for $20 million for this or that improvement/addition later on. Sure, they might not ask for taxpayers to fund the facility up front -- rather, they'll likely do it "piecemeal" later on down the road through a number of smaller ballot initiatives. Not exactly a "bait and switch," but a way to make it more palatable and lower profile.

Most Omahans understand the importance of this event and would -- in my opinion -- be willing to fund at least part of it.

This isn't merely a ballot initiative to build a stadium that a privately-owned professional team would use. We are asking people to support an event which apparently has a sizable economic impact and serves as a PR tool for the city.

I think the Mayor's office should be willing to sell this to the people of Omaha. Because one way or another, we will end up footing the bill for this facility. Unlike past mayoral administrations (such as Morgan or Daub) I get the sense that Fahey isn't ready for a fight.

You'll recall that a lot of people were opposed to a new convention center/arena. Yet the BuildItOmaha campaign was able to sell the $293 million facility to taxpayers.

My personal feeling is that all of the talk in recent days about "needing" a new facility stemmed more from fear of the Save Rosenblatt committee than it did from a mandate by the NCAA. You'll notice the gauntlet was dropped in conjunction with the Kevin Costner commercials airing locally.

As little as a couple of weeks ago, you had the city (including Jack Diesing) suggesting that they'd present two plans -- one involving a brand-new stadium and another involving the renovation of Rosenblatt.

I think the Mayor's office (along with CWS Inc.) is just as culpable for wanting a new stadium as the NCAA. They'll attempt to shift responsibility by suggesting that they can't meet the NCAA's demands without a new stadium in a new location, but I don't know for sure if that is necessarily the entire truth.

What I would like to see is a better sales job out of Civic leaders. It is Fahey's responsibility to sell this concept to Omahans. When he says he wants to avoid making it a contentious issue, what it suggests is that he feels leaders will be unable to obtain broad support for a ballot initiative.

Revenue bonds might be the best thing, but the "salesmanship" (so far) seems to be lacking.

Reading the article in yesterday's fishwrap (with varying opinions from the City Council) is poor PR. The city should have had a plan ready to go before they started issuing statements. But again, they appear to be more worried about a cheaply-made commercial starring Kevin Costner than they do about having all of their ducks in a row.

It would have been better to develop a specific plan, discuss it with the City Council, and wait until they got tacit approval from the NCAA. Because in the absence of information is speculation.

In this instance, we have no idea what such a facility would cost or exactly how it'd be funded. We have a lot of vague generalities and few specifics.

I understand the city's desire to quash a grassroots effort before it is fully formed. But it leaves something to be desired and actually raises more questions in the minds of a lot of Omahans.
Go to Top of Page

hackermav
Minister of Antagonism

1039 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  12:54:29 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
In 2001, Pittsburgh built a new stadium for the Pirates. It seats 38,000 and cost $231 million.

Essentially, we are going to do the same thing for a 10-day event every year.


Difference is we get to keep the revenue, outside of the NCAA of course. The Pirates get a huge share of that, and we, as taxpayers would get the lion's share.

I know I am one who has brought up the Sewers and Union contracts as a reason to not go through with this at the beginning. That was way before any of this was thought through on how we would pay for it. We pay for the upgrades to Rosenblatt through revenue bonds, at least I think we do, so what is the difference if we just drop Rosenblatt in favor of Fahey Field at Kiewit Park? It is just pushing the money around.

As long as property taxes do not have to be raised to cover this, I don;t see the problem. (Yes, I know it is a big if.)

quote:
That'll inevitably mean that the city (via MECA) will try and milk more money out of all the facilities they current control -- which includes the Qwest Center, Rosenblatt, and the Civic Auditorium.


When the hell did MECA take over Rosenblatt? In my opinion, MECA should not have any control over this new field. They have not proven to be fiscally responsible for the City and its taxpayers. They only look out for themselves. I know they are a quasi-governmental agency that's sole responsibility is to run the Qwest and Civic, but they need to take into account the taxpayers sometime soon.
Go to Top of Page

admin
U!N!O!

10827 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  1:02:37 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My apologies.

MECA will control a new ballpark.

http://action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=7012820

quote:
Action 3 News has learned of another key move in the battle for a new downtown ballpark.

Mayor Mike Fahey says if a new ball park is built, it should be run by MECA, the same people who run the Qwest Center.

While the Mayor says nothing's final, and that Rosenblatt Stadium could remain home to the College World Series, the City is also looking at a downtown ballpark, just north of the Qwest in Parking Lot "D."

Sources tell Action 3 News that MECA is balking at the ballpark worried it will phohibit the Qwest from expanding.

According to the City's contract with MECA Qwest must have at least 4,000 parking stalls at any one time. Right now there are 4,585. Lot "D" has 1,677. Eliminating Lot "D" would leave 2,908 stalls. In addition the contract states that regarding, "...parking areas designated for future development, MECA and the City shall cooperate."

Asked if MECA can stop the City from building the ballpark in Lot "D" the Mayor says, "I don't know that. My impression is we're gonna try to work all those things out."
Go to Top of Page

AJMav
Minister of Anger

Iran
4503 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  1:21:02 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I changed my mind.

Let the CWS leave.

Roger doesn't need any more pet projects.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.huskerh8er.com (and don't forget to visit www.zebrahead.com/news)
Go to Top of Page

krutov 9
All-Star Mav

Russia
2987 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  1:36:13 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Expand ... Expand" what ? That convention center that is always booked ?
Go to Top of Page

hackermav
Minister of Antagonism

1039 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  3:02:54 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Got to have more room for Darth's new Death Star and his ego..of course.

Go to Top of Page

admin
U!N!O!

10827 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  4:19:05 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I just wonder how much MECA is going to charge the city to build on their parking lot.
Go to Top of Page

Bigredmed
Senior Mav

1574 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2007 :  6:08:17 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Of course MECA will control it. It will be built on MECA's land, and it will be necessary for MECA to control it so that Fahey can get the rich to back this.

This is a big item that will be a cost to the taxpayers. I am dubious of the NCAA's willingness to give us a 20 year deal on it. I worry that the tax factory will get stuck with this in addition to all the other things in the city that we get to pay for (but not use.)

We really need to take this seriously. A lot of people with brains and assets are already planning to leave Omaha upon retirement or just to get out from under the property tax.

With 1.8 Billion of unsexy, unfun, can't put someone's name on it, liabilities looming at us, we need to slow things down and get some perspective.

From the perspective of a person who actually lives in the middle of the city, who is a good mile from the nearest MAT bus route, two miles from the nearest library, and 3 miles from a city run swimming pool (and I live in a "convenient" neighborhood), this just smells like another dump in the twizzlers pile.

Go to Top of Page

MavRick
A Better Fan Than You

USA
-3935 Posts

Posted - 09/25/2007 :  07:47:03 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I doubt the deal is politically saleable at 10 years. I would guess the only difference between 15 and 20 years is price tag and performance targets. I also doubt we'll have to pay for and build the whole thing before the NCAA tells us how long we get the series. So we'll be making an informed decision at bond-issue time.

We didn't blink at 100 million for the West Dodge Ghettomaker Expressway, whose overall impact on Omaha's economy will be much smaller, net of the commercial neighborhood it is destroying, than a multi-year deal to keep the Series here and growing.

The assumption underlying the fiscal argument against the ballpark is that we're just throwing $100 million down a hole. In reality, the Series is a proven, sustained boon to the Omaha economy. It gives people jobs. It brings money into the city. It increases the tax base.

If we were building a ballpark on spec and hoping to get a team, I'd certainly share the fiscal concerns. It's a steal at 15 years of the CWS and a total no-brainer at 20.

As for BRM's suggestion that he ought to be exempt from taxation for things he does "not use," this is also a wonderful argument for the childless against public schools, the privileged against police forces, and those in brick homes against fire departments. For me, a city ought to be more than a dormitory and an office suite. It should be a place for us to gather, interact, and enjoy more together than we could separately. And where, as here, we have an undisputed ability to boost the economy and sustain Omaha's sterling reputation for economic development, the questions are not hard.



"Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, Supreme Court of the United States (1943)
Go to Top of Page

Go Mavs
Junior Mav

USA
969 Posts

Posted - 09/25/2007 :  08:25:03 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Citizens demand a stadium! --- Sim City (#1)

GO MAVS!
Go to Top of Page

hackermav
Minister of Antagonism

1039 Posts

Posted - 09/25/2007 :  08:30:43 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
With 1.8 Billion of unsexy, unfun, can't put someone's name on it, liabilities looming at us, we need to slow things down and get some perspective.


With each and every one of us owing about $36,000 to the Federal deficit at this pint in time, what's another $36,000 owed to the Omaha City deficit/bonds?

It's just money, and you can't take it with you.

I agree with Mavrick, 10 years won't work, 15 is at least a break even in the deal, 20 makes us money ahead.
Go to Top of Page

Bigredmed
Senior Mav

1574 Posts

Posted - 09/25/2007 :  6:23:16 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I guess I just hear a lot of folks at the water cooler talking about leaving. A lot of my colleagues could work elsewhere and have no ties to Omaha, so could leave relatively quickly.

I also hear a lot of people from 120th west who comment on the lack of MAT bus service, library service, and parks, despite their tax money to pay for these things. Most of us reflect on larger cities we have worked in and realize that in places like Boston and DC, everyone takes the mass transit, even when you are more than 10 miles away from "mid town".

Adding this, means adding to our debt load and risking the AAA rating we need to keep schools and roads affordable. With 1.8 billion in notes to be sold, consider what even a single added point would mean in terms of total cost.

If the NCAA were to sign on the dotted line, the deal be public BEFORE a vote was held, and time was allowed to give people a chance to work the numbers for themselves, a new stadium may be benign, but if we are going to get another Qwest Job, we have to wonder if we are getting a little to uncomfortably close to our tax ceiling.

Its already hard to recruit nationally to Omaha, what will we do when we add in governmental budget crises to the mix of Midwest, bad national image, and lack of beachfront real estate?

Go to Top of Page

MavRick
A Better Fan Than You

USA
-3935 Posts

Posted - 09/25/2007 :  10:15:42 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The studies show not that we have a bad national image, however convenient that may be to argue at the moment. They show instead we have little to no image. There are plenty of places with low taxes and nothing to do. But I think joining them by trashing our marquee event is the wrong path.

As for people who live 120th west and complain about the cost of infrastructure, it's pretty well universally agreed that those who have aided and abetted urban sprawl by insisting on a street that goes nowhere with homes in the same price range as their own in low-density development do not pay their share of the infrastructure they cause to be built and maintained for their benefit. So I am afraid I must find myself unsympathetic to McMansionistas with high taxes, as they metaphorically kill their parents and weep that they are orphans.

We spent $100 million so these folks wouldn't have to wait for a light at 114th and Dodge, and now they complain that they don't have enough libraries? I am afraid I find the disaffected suburban doctors who are indifferent about a $40 million per year boon to the city a difficult demographic to get behind.



"Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, Supreme Court of the United States (1943)
Go to Top of Page

Mojo325is
McQueen...

Brazil
1654 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2007 :  08:52:15 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I concur with Rick.

Omaha is a bright, vibrant and exciting place for people of all ages, and especially the young professional crowd.

BRM, my father works at a local hospital (in management), and he's never mentioned any of his colleagues wanting to leave. As a matter of fact, he's told me that it's rather easy to recruit talented doctors, nurses and support staff to Omaha because once they get here, they enjoy themselves and fall in love with the city and all it has to offer.

One of my best friends is a head-hunter in corporate accounting and finance and has no problems recruiting top-level folks to Omaha.

You speak of a 'Qwest Job'...are you implying that the city got hoodwinked in the arena deal?

My company brought one of the biggest DJ's in the US to Omaha about 6 weeks ago, he had never played here before. Talking to him on the phone prior to picking him at the airport, he joked about cornfields, outhouses and cattle in a typical LA fashion.

The minute he stepped off the plane and got to see the city, he had nothing but glowing reviews. As a matter of fact, he's opened the door for us to bring other acts to town because he had such a great time. Thus, that creates new and exciting entertainment and 'stuff to do'.

And, although it hasn't been brought up yet, I would think that there would be a possibility of outdoor shows during the summer months at the new ballpark as well.

Close your eyes and imagine a warm and sticky August night, you and a group of friends enjoying a few cold libations while the Police jam on a stage in centerfield with 25,000 screaming Omahans enjoy the view...

That, my friend, is the future.

------------


Trying to elude the Mickey Mouse Brigade
Go to Top of Page

Bigredmed
Senior Mav

1574 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2007 :  1:01:55 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The stadium concerts may be the future, but so is 1.5 billion dollar sewer repair, and all those highly paid police and fire retirees. Those dollars have to come from someone.

The people who can leave will.

As for recruiting, we have severe problems in recruiting physicians in areas that are tight (We have a pediatric hepatology slot that is going on 3 years open, we have a pediatric oncology slot that is going on 2 years open, took us 2 years to find a pediatric infectious disease doc, we have a pediatric endocrinology-metabolism slot that we just gave up on filling.) Just can't compete with UCLA's ocean, Colorado's mountains, or Hopkins' rep. Adding civic financial instability and high taxes makes it worse.

Before one judges the people who live in west Omaha as a bunch of ungrateful dillitants, remember, that Millard is the only area of the city to exceed its share of scattered site housing (and Dundee-Happy hollow has not come close to their share YET (10 years after the program was started, 8 years after Millard surpassed their share.)

Also realize that I drive by a lot of houses that are 150% of the size of mine between Childrens and UNMC. Add in between Westside HS and UNMC, you could just about do a 1 for 1 count of big over built mcMansions in that area as compared to any similar land area in West Omaha.
Go to Top of Page

AJMav
Minister of Anger

Iran
4503 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2007 :  4:45:59 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As a LONG time member of this online community..let me be the first to warn you....I don't think you want to get into that argument with Rick.

Your points are well taken, and I even agree with most of them...but just a friendly warning....don't.

I'll even start in on the Civic if you like.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.huskerh8er.com (and don't forget to visit www.zebrahead.com/news)
Go to Top of Page

Greg S
All-Star Mav

4101 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2007 :  5:40:20 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I really don't see a mass exodus of West O people leaving Omaha. I work west of 132nd and live near 156th and can honestly say that I have not heard one person talk about moving because of the sewers, Qwest or possible stadium. People complaining about property taxes? Yes.

FYI-I'm in HR, part of my job is to recruit for an office of over 300 here in Omaha, (along with our offices in KC, two in Texas and one in Colorado). I can honestly say that I have not had a problem filling positions. We've had more employees request transfers to Omaha than moving to other locals. When the big wigs come in from our headquarters in DC they have been impressed with the improvements Omaha has made in the 15 years that we've been here.

Greg
Go to Top of Page

West O Mike
All-Star Mav

Christmas Island
5308 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2007 :  8:46:21 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The complaints about taxes are real...but must be balanced the lower cost of just about everything else...

Blog: http://huskermike.blogspot.com
Go to Top of Page

Greg S
All-Star Mav

4101 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2007 :  10:37:30 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yep I agree. You can but a much better house here for what you sell one for on the coasts but just be prepared to pay so much more in property tax.

Greg
Go to Top of Page

hackermav
Minister of Antagonism

1039 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2007 :  2:45:19 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
As for people who live 120th west and complain about the cost of infrastructure, it's pretty well universally agreed that those who have aided and abetted urban sprawl by insisting on a street that goes nowhere with homes in the same price range as their own in low-density development do not pay their share of the infrastructure they cause to be built and maintained for their benefit. So I am afraid I must find myself unsympathetic to McMansionistas with high taxes, as they metaphorically kill their parents and weep that they are orphans.

We spent $100 million so these folks wouldn't have to wait for a light at 114th and Dodge, and now they complain that they don't have enough libraries? I am afraid I find the disaffected suburban doctors who are indifferent about a $40 million per year boon to the city a difficult demographic to get behind.


Wasn't it state and fedral dollars spent on the Expressway? Those dollars would have been spent somewhere else had they not been spent here. And it wouldn't ahve been on the sewers.

So can we western Omahans complain that you eastern Omahans are using our tax dollars for the Saddlecreek move?

I really don't get the when people from eastern Omaha think we don;t have the right to question where are tax dollars are being spent. I mean outside of roads, where do we get what we pay for from the government. I know we don't get our money's worth from the police, as most of the money goes to fighting crime in the east, the libraries, snow service, maybe the streets would be cleared more quickly if people didn't leave all of their cars on the side of the road in the east. And what half of the 1.8 Billion for the sewers will come from those who don't need theirs fixed (not just western Omaha).

I'd love to hear everyone from eastern Omaha complaining about how high their property taxes are if Omaha stopped at 72nd street. I could argue there would be Qwest Center. There would be only the Civic minus the $25 million upgrade. UNO wouldn't be anything like it is today. There would be no PKI. Creighton wouldn't bethe same. Where are all of those doctors, lawyers, and dentists going to live, downtown? Doubt it. Omaha wouldn't be anything like it is today if West Omaha and it's money wasn't around. So I just wish I could stop hearing that argument that since our homes are newer that we don't pay our fair share of taxes for once. We all pay more than we should in taxes. And if Buffy from West O wants to complain about not having a library even though she pays taxes for them, she can. If Vito from East O wants to complain about all of the potholes in his neighborhood even though his taxes pay to ahve them fixed, he can. Taxes, like social security, are just a big pyramid scheme, someone is getting screwed.

To say that we in the west do not have the right to ask what our tax dollars are doing for us because of where we choose to live, is just wrong.
Go to Top of Page

MavRick
A Better Fan Than You

USA
-3935 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2007 :  4:59:06 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hacker has eloquently responded to arguments I did not make. The issue with West Omaha development is not that it is in the west, that the people there have comparatively higher incomes, or that their houses are larger. The issue is much lower density development in suburban neighborhoods. Low density development has much higher infrastructure cost per person.

There are a number of non-fiscal arguments to be articulated against post-war suburban development practices, but they are all beyond the scope of this discussion.






"Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, Supreme Court of the United States (1943)
Go to Top of Page

mcgwillie
I am Ninety...er, Spartacus!

Argentina
138 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2007 :  7:04:07 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Vito?

Mcgwillie

I am Ninety...er, Spartacus!
Go to Top of Page

hackermav
Minister of Antagonism

1039 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  09:55:03 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Vito?


I know a bunch of Italians from East O.

quote:
The issue is much lower density development in suburban neighborhoods. Low density development has much higher infrastructure cost per person.


And so that means that they shouldn't have the same amenities/government services as everyone else? I get that you cannot support someone who complains that their taxes are higher because they own more space, I agree. I just don't get how you can't support the fact that they don't get what they pay for. That is the City's fault, not the taxpayer. We all pay the same taxes based on what we own for all city services. So you would accept the complaints and arguments if they tempered them by saying I pay for services that I do not receive versus I pay too much in taxes?

Why should I not question the fact that I pay the same for the libraries and police services but yet receive inferior services?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 107 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
MP Message Board © 2000-2017 MavPuck.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000