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

dartben
Sophomore Mav

404 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  12:14:49 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MavRick


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.


This isn't an appellate court, counselor. The scope of the discussion may be expanded at will.

My parents live out west. I currently live downtown. Should I remain in Omaha following graduation, I'll probably stay downtown for the near future. (though if and when I ever have kids, if I'm still in town, all bets are off).

That said, for all the crap the suburbanites take about never crossing 72nd street, there is a presumptive arrogance among many eastern Omaha denizens that they are better because they don't contribute to the so-called suburban sprawl. Much like the yokels who complain about traffic in Omaha, suburban sprawl in Omaha is nothing compared to many cities nationwide.
Go to Top of Page

AJMav
Minister of Anger

Iran
4503 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  12:25:38 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm a Sarpy County guy.

I think you all suck.
Go to Top of Page

hackermav
Minister of Antagonism

1039 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  12:47:20 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
I'm a Sarpy County guy.


I bet you spend a good portion of your time in Omaha?

I find this to be the case with a good chunk of Sappy residents. It is why I believed the City should have instituted a so-called 'Head Tax' (not that) instead of expanding their ridiculous Wheel Tax. More money, and fair to everyone who actually uses Omaha versus just a Douglas expansion.

With all of that being said, I would like to see a big Omaha corporation step up and announce that they are interested in naming rights/donating or something of that nature for the new ballpark. I think that would go a long way to numbing the pressure from pro-Rosenblatt supporters. Those on the fence would see that someone with some pockets was willing to dole out some cash for the city. Even if it turns out they don't get the rights. Someone from the community needs to do this. I blame Fahey for this right now. His ultra secret two handed handshake meetings on this and even more cryptic message to the general public have led to rampant rumors and hysteria over tax dollars. This has been going on for a good humber of months, we should have more than a NCAA wishlist and a parking lot.
Go to Top of Page

AJMav
Minister of Anger

Iran
4503 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  1:57:47 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Nope.

Anything north of Harrison is considered the ghetto.



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

who dey
Sophomore Mav

USA
456 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  2:52:01 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
1.5 billion dollar sewer repair


I wonder what the value of all of the property is in the 1.5b must repair sewer area. If I remember correctly it is not the entire east of 72nd area but a strip that runs through the city. Might be cheaper to bulldoze it all and buy them out.
Go to Top of Page

MavRick
A Better Fan Than You

USA
-3935 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  3:08:05 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Lots of responses to arguments I still am not making. I have not argued that Easties are "better" than Westies. The problem that I have with suburban development is not where it is, but how it is.

The worst examples of post-war suburban development, many of which can be found in West Omaha, promote very high per-capita infrastructure costs when compared to more traditional urban development. I believe there are numerous social and moral arguments that can be made about this kind of development, but I choose not to make them here. For the purposes of this discussion, I merely observe that people who choose low-density development on the fringe of the city make a choice for which people in existing neighborhoods have to pay. And that's certainly fine, but not when somebody in a new neighborhood, whose sewers, roads, fire protection and police protection require me to dig in my pocket, objects to the revitalization of an established neighborhood on the ground that he or she must suddenly pay for some part of the city in which he or she does not reside.

I emphasize that this view does not depend on home size - there are lots of multimillion-dollar houses in pre-war neighborhoods (Memorial Park, e.g.) nor does it depend on location (as evidenced by the 168th and State development which employs traditional neighborhood design principles). Low-density suburbanites want parks for side yards and cul-de-sacs that chew up ground, and drive up police and fire response times, increase snow removal time and cost, and increase street construction and maintenance costs because any street that goes anywhere must straddle a section line and ultimately be five or six lanes wide. And they are suprised that there is no money left after sewers, power, water, and acres of concrete are stretched out to them. Worse, they are outraged when the city whose services they regularly use annexes them to recapture the tax revenue whose expenditure they have forced.

I do believe that those who inflict disrpoportionate cost of infrastructure on those in established neighborhoods have diminished standing to object. Give me an overpass, they say because I like cul-de-sacs and every thoroughfare must be a freeway. Widen Q street to 6 lanes, they say, when those of us who have left room for Underwood, Leavenworth, Western, Blondo, Maple, Pacific, Center, and a host of others can get around on two-lane streets in an area that is twice to three times as densely populated as the 'burbs, and never sit through two lights east of 72nd. But build something that will continue downtown's explosive growth and will almost pay for itself? What about the taxes?! Outrage!

I emphasize that people don't intend to make moral choices when they live in isolating, stratifying, costly developments that make cars our masters rather than our servants. But they must accept, at a minimum, the fiscal consequences of the way they choose to live. Right now, they don't, and so I find their arguments against investment in the city, when it does not get them through Applebees and in their garage faster, to be unpersuasive.



"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

The Basement
Inconceivable!

Italy
870 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  3:24:20 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Back on topic... Screw Rosenblatt. Long live Cox Field at the Alltel Pavilion, conveniently located next to the Qwest Center Omaha.
Go to Top of Page

hackermav
Minister of Antagonism

1039 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  3:37:46 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
When did the City of Omaha put in my sewers, build my roads, staff my sheriff cruisers, plow my street? They did not pay a cent of those costs. The City does not pay for things outside of its limits. My SID pays for those things, of course funded by my property taxes. You cannot say that I have caused you any undue city/property tax consequences based on the construction of my home outside of Omaha. You didn't have to pay for any of it. So when the City annexed me they actually made money on the deal, as they took in large bags of property tax money without having to layout anything but legal fees.

And this is how it works nowadays, its not a new neighborhood being built inside the City paid for by City taxes. It is a neighborhood being built and paid for by the neighborhood's residents and then when it becomes a cash plus deal the City swoops in and takes over and offers the same 'great level' of service as everyone else gets.

I go back to my argument. I have the right to question now what my City taxes are paying for when I don't have the same level of services as some one else paying the same rate as I do.

quote:
But build something that will continue downtown's explosive growth and will almost pay for itself? What about the taxes?! Outrage!


My biggest problem is that 'paying for itself' is being proven wrong time and time again with the Qwest Center, Hilton, and if these City leaders continue what they are doing now it will too with a new Ballpark.

Even if the new Ballpark is a even deal with the CWS in town for 20 years, you have to question how it will be paid for and will it raise property taxes down the line.
Go to Top of Page

dartben
Sophomore Mav

404 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  4:14:24 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by hackermav

My biggest problem is that 'paying for itself' is being proven wrong time and time again with the Qwest Center, Hilton, and if these City leaders continue what they are doing now it will too with a new Ballpark.


Operational wise, the Qwest is more than paying for itself. My bigger beef with that is why the city is still paying MECA a subsidy that was thought would be needed but clearly isn't since MECA would still be turning a profit without it. Instead, the city could be using that money to pay down the building's debt. "Shoring up" MECA's rainy day maintenance fund isn't a good enough excuse, since MECA could put its profits towards that anyway.

The Hilton situation I don't know enough about, except that it seems like a case of they didn't build it big enough to help attract major conventions, so they aren't getting enough convention business, so we're actually needing to pay more for less because Fahey skimped.
Go to Top of Page

MavRick
A Better Fan Than You

USA
-3935 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  6:10:14 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by hackermav

My SID pays for those things, of course funded by my property taxes. You cannot say that I have caused you any undue city/property tax consequences based on the construction of my home outside of Omaha.


You're simply not listening.

You built "outside the city," work in the city, use city services, and ultimately get annexed. The SID process is a matter of timing, and again, I don't object to this process. It's how the city grows. And there's naturally a process by which a piece of the tax base builds in greenfields and eventually gets recaptured. This is a good and healthy process; otherwise, Elkhorn (whose land-use values are not merely misguided but just plain stupid) with 10,001 people winds up dictating land-use policy to Omaha with 400,000 people.

Nobody who builds in the Omaha suburbs should rationally expect to remain an SID forever. I don't know where you live, so I don't know if you've just been annexed or will be in a couple of years, but if you're in a residential SID in Douglas County, you're in one of those two categories. And I already share the burden via what I pay county government to police and fire you.

And of course, Glen Hills Creek Cherry Wood Acres Park isn't a self-contained city-state. Its streets go nowhere, and dump out, two or three times per quarter-section, into an automotive sewer (Maple, Blondo, Dodge, Pacific, Center) for whose widening I will ultimately share in paying. It has no retail, because post-war subdivisions just have houses, so you have to get out onto these high-speed roads to get anywhere (is it any wonder our children are obese when they can't ride their bikes or walk anywhere but to the end of their lollipop street? That they are becoming less attuned to diversity when everyone in their neighborhood has a house in the same $25,000 range?). And before long, you complain that the dirt road at 217th and Q should be paved, and then it should be widened, etc. And before you know it, we have built a large section of our city to make our cars happy and to separate ourselves from each other.

You'll be in Omaha soon, if you're not already, and no matter where you are, you're affecting Omaha.

All of this by way of saying the claim that "I'm out here living in Fungible Estates, having no effect on Vito" is demonstrable poppycock.

And once again, please understand that I don't have a problem with development to the West. I have a problem with the incredibly poor land use that has intensified our traffic problems (and required incredibly stupid decisions like the Ghettomaker, a design concept every halfway forward-thinking community has long ago abandoned). Some of Omaha's richest areas are in 68132, with over 5,400 people per square mile; the unremarkable (but much higher median-income) suburban stretch of 68164 has less than 3,000. And traffic is way better on two-lane Underwood Avenue than it is on West Maple Road.

And of course it's true that:
quote:
I have the right to question now what my City taxes are paying for


..because that is exactly what I am doing. It isn't about right to object, it's about the weight of the objection. I question the wisdom of low-density development. I question the routine use of streets with no navigable value. I question single-use development, when all the vibrant destination neighborhoods in this city are multi-use (and that does not mean loops and lollypops of streets that face away from, and are separated by fences, berms and ditches from, a strip mall). Taxes are higher than they should be.

A significant part of that reason, in my judgment, is that a large number of people have elected a lifestyle for which they do not bear the entire marginal cost of their choice. And I find the objections of those people to further tax expenditure, when that expenditure has a high likelihood of bringing many multiples of that expenditure into the city, and into the pockets of people who don't live in the suburbs, unpersuasive.
Go to Top of Page

admin
U!N!O!

10825 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  6:45:48 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I guess in my mind a tax increase isn't necessarily a concern.

I simply don't believe the notion that the CWS will leave unless we build a new stadium.

I think that the citizens of Omaha should be able to have all of the facts. I'd like to know the demographics of the season ticket base for the event.

Because I'd bet that 90 to 95% of attendees are from the Omaha-metro area.

As such, the "threat" of it being moved to Indianapolis (or wherever it is that they happen to have a new stadium) is somewhat hollow. This isn't the Frozen Four where you have a large "national" ticket base. And...this isn't a 3 or 4 day event. It is a week-long event which essentially means that you need a strong local following to support it -- they don't have that in any of these other "mythical" cities everyone is worried about.

The NCAA keeps most (if not all) of the ticket money from the CWS. When you purchase tickets to an NCAA championship event, you pay the NCAA -- not the City of Omaha.

It would be absolutely counterproductive on their part to move the event. I suppose more luxury suites could allow the NCAA to get more sponsorship money -- of which they likely keep most, if not all of the proceeds.

I am simply not convinced that it is "impossible" or "cost prohibitive" to build an entirely new press/luxury box structure onto the existing Rosenblatt structure.

I toured Fenway Park in 2006. I looked at the impressive luxury suites they "added" to the main grandstand of that 100+ year old facility.

Fahey has been a very milque-toast mayor and he wants something to put his name on. As such, this is going to be his "legacy" project.

He won't get 20 years. Maybe I'm wrong...maybe that is a done deal.

I was 14 back in 1987. That was a long, long time ago.

The NCAA would lose all of their bargaining power with a 20-year deal (i.e. the "threat" of pulling the event from Omaha).
Go to Top of Page

AJMav
Minister of Anger

Iran
4503 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2007 :  7:28:27 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Rick's point is probably the best I've heard here in 6+ years.

Whomever built the roads in west Omaha is a F**KING IDIOT. Try driving down Blondo street (at about 144th-120th at 7:30am) Let me know how that turns out.



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

Go Mavs
Junior Mav

USA
969 Posts

Posted - 09/30/2007 :  11:32:15 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The latest article on Rosenblatt:

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10145551



GO MAVS!
Go to Top of Page

hackermav
Minister of Antagonism

1039 Posts

Posted - 10/01/2007 :  09:53:25 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
I do believe that those who inflict disrpoportionate cost of infrastructure on those in established neighborhoods have diminished standing to object.


These are the kinds of statements that I am having trouble with and arguing against. I am not arguing that Westies have the right to say because it doesn't affect me I shouldn't pay for it. That is wrong in the this collaborative of a country we live in. My problem is telling me that I don't have the right, or less of a right, because supposedly I cost more than someone else with different needs/problems. That is all I was arguing against.

Go to Top of Page

admin
U!N!O!

10825 Posts

Posted - 10/01/2007 :  4:30:08 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
"We don't want to give the NCAA a reason to talk to anybody else," said Jack Diesing Jr., president of CWS Inc.

City and CWS Inc. officials have heard the rumblings about other cities eyeing the increasingly popular and lucrative event. Orlando, Fla., has been mentioned several times as being interested. Over the years, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Minneapolis and Oklahoma City also have been talked about as alternative sites.

"We can't sit back and assume they will never leave," Diesing said. "That would be very dangerous."

Those concerns first resulted in a plan early this year to spend $26 million upgrading Rosenblatt and the area around the stadium in exchange for a 10-year contract.

When the new stadium entered the picture, Fahey and Diesing raised the stakes by asking for a 20-year deal.

In endorsing a new stadium, the NCAA committed to a longer-term contract but not necessarily the 20 years that Fahey and Diesing say they need.

Dennis Poppe, who heads the NCAA's baseball and football operations, said the city could get a return on its "investment over 10, 15 or 20 years."

Diesing and Fahey said they have been assured privately that a 20-year deal is quite possible.



Interesting that there is no mention of cost for a 25,000 (expandable to 30,000) seat facility.

Also interesting that Dennis Poppe feels that Omaha could get a return on their investment with a 10, 15 or 20-year contract.

And...it is interesting to read that Omaha wanted a 10-year contract in exchange for $26 million in improvements to the existing Rosenblatt Stadium.
Go to Top of Page

AJMav
Minister of Anger

Iran
4503 Posts

Posted - 10/01/2007 :  7:49:03 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Should I say I told you so again?

By the way..I saw the little "Save Rosenblatt" people on TV tonight. I wanted to jump through my TV and pimpslap them across the face.

Don't you idiots know who you're dealing with?

I almost want them to win..and the city renovates Rosenblatt. Then when the CWS leaves, those "Save Rosenblatt" people will become the STeve Bartman of Omaha.

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

West O Mike
All-Star Mav

Christmas Island
5308 Posts

Posted - 10/04/2007 :  2:43:37 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Price Tag: $95 to $117 million
Permanent Seating: approximately 10,000
Capacity for CWS: approximately 23,600
Skyboxes: 18

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10149674

quote:
Among the biggest surprises in the mayor's finance plan is a new citywide tax on prepared food, beverages and, possibly, tickets to entertainment events.

Fahey is asking for a 2 percent entertainment tax that would apply to prepared foods and beverages. It would generate an estimated $3 million a year, which the mayor says would be the single largest revenue source used to pay for the stadium.

Such a tax could add 20 cents to a $10 meal or a dime to a $5 beer.

Might also mean that a $10 UNO hockey ticket might also carry a 20 cent tax for the new stadium.

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

hackermav
Minister of Antagonism

1039 Posts

Posted - 10/04/2007 :  4:49:17 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
So we are just going to build a stadium the same size as Rosenblatt for $120 million? What's the damn point? All we are getting is a concourse view and skyboxes that 99% of the city's occupants will never set foot in.

I am all for the new stadium, but I just don't get making it smaller and bringing in removable seating. If you are going to build it, make it large enough to hold more people and bring in possibly more tax revenue. Who cares about the Royals? And CU will build their own place to play, so why are we making it smaller?

I guess I like the 'entertainment tax' over property taxes, but I don't like how this has become more public money than private dollars. Now the City ahd better get 20 years from the NCAA.

And I see our sewer fees will probably increase to pay for this as well.

quote:
The new tax money would be used to pay off the lease-purchase bonds that Fahey is proposing to use for the stadium construction. The city also would use sewer bonds to pay for stadium infrastructure.


That ought to Mountain Dew off even those in the middle of this whole tax fight.

And haven't our idiot elected officials figured out that this won;t work from the QCO?

quote:
Beyond the 23,600 capacity for the CWS, the stadium would be constructed to support a 5,000-seat future expansion, Fahey said.


Just do it now instead of letting MECA find another way to spend the city's revenue to 'improve' their new stadium.

I wonder if MECA will give out more city money for bonuses on the construction of the ballpark?

Enough of my b!tching. You had the foresight enough to buid the damn thing, now make it worth it.
Go to Top of Page

West O Mike
All-Star Mav

Christmas Island
5308 Posts

Posted - 10/04/2007 :  5:08:35 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by hackermav

So we are just going to build a stadium the same size as Rosenblatt for $120 million? What's the damn point? All we are getting is a concourse view and skyboxes that 99% of the city's occupants will never set foot in.

I am all for the new stadium, but I just don't get making it smaller and bringing in removable seating. If you are going to build it, make it large enough to hold more people and bring in possibly more tax revenue. Who cares about the Royals? And CU will build their own place to play, so why are we making it smaller?

I guess I like the 'entertainment tax' over property taxes, but I don't like how this has become more public money than private dollars. Now the City ahd better get 20 years from the NCAA.



I think the entertainment tax would only provide about 1/3rd of the cost of this thing. My guess is that there is more information about the financing yet to be reported.

As for why we're doing this, I think the question has more to do with the other things the NCAA wants: hotels, clubhouses/locker rooms, no beer tents, etc. I personally would like "bigger" though...

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

MavRick
A Better Fan Than You

USA
-3935 Posts

Posted - 10/04/2007 :  5:17:27 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by hackermav

All we are getting is a concourse view and skyboxes that 99% of the city's occupants will never set foot in.



And redevelopment of north downtown, and there was something else....oh, yes. A long-term contract for an event that brings in $40 million per year to the city. I mean, it's hardly worth mentioning...



"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

BIGHUSKERMAV
Senior Mav

1631 Posts

Posted - 10/04/2007 :  6:12:48 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
How is a 23,000 seat stadium going to be big enough? Didn't the NCAA want 30,000??? And I thought the NCAA didn't want any removable seats?
Go to Top of Page

mrkaline
Mav Scout in Indiana

Poland
1475 Posts

Posted - 10/04/2007 :  6:34:22 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by hackermav

So we are just going to build a stadium the same size as Rosenblatt for $120 million? What's the damn point? All we are getting is a concourse view and skyboxes that 99% of the city's occupants will never set foot in.

I am all for the new stadium, but I just don't get making it smaller and bringing in removable seating. If you are going to build it, make it large enough to hold more people and bring in possibly more tax revenue. Who cares about the Royals? And CU will build their own place to play, so why are we making it smaller?



Bigger is not always better, look at the Q for hockey or Rosenblatt for the Royals. I think by making the ballpark smaller, you help create demand. Knowing there are 15,000 tickets for the Royals in a crappy stadium doesn't exactly scream "hot ticket, good times!" Brand new stadiums, family friendly prices, and places to go before and after the games creates the kind of atmosphere that will bring casual fans to the new park.

I'm not a huge fan of AAA baseball, and had no ties to Indianapolis when I first moved here. Once I got to Victory field, I knew I was going to go to several games a year. Downtown, near bars and restaurants, with a great view and a great field, made it an experience. Not just a game, but an experience. I believe that's what will happen. To qoute the great James Earl Jones:
"Ray, people will come Ray. They'll come for reasons they can't even fathom......And they'll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray.....This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come."
Go to Top of Page

MavBridget
The Girl Wonder

France
6424 Posts

Posted - 10/04/2007 :  6:35:42 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
All right, this is where I put on my Eeyore hat.

If the CWS brings in $40 million a year, why is it that John & Jane Q. Public are footing the bill for the majority of the cost? If the majority of the economic impact is on lodging and food and beverage (hotels and meals), why isn't the lodging tax paying part of the increase? Oh, that's right ... it's because we ALREADY have one of the highest lodging taxes in the region (and we're not that attractive to begin with as a destination -- couple that with a higher lodging tax, and there's no way that we get 1/2 the conferences/conventions we're getting now). And the food tax will be year-round ... so even though the economic impact is concentrated in 2 weeks out of the year, the cost to the rest of us will be felt 52 weeks of the year.

And this entertainment tax is a joke! If someone proposed building a $100 million hockey stadium and paying for it with an entertainment tax on all other events, they'd be laughed out of the city. An all-purpose facility like the Qwest Center I can see. For ONLY BASEBALL? Ridiculous. Instead, if you're attending a hockey game, or a concert, you're paying to subsidize TWO WEEKS OF BASEBALL.

I understand there's a $40 million economic impact -- but what are the COSTS that we're incurring to receive that? Tens of millions of dollars in investment in now-obsolete facilities, not to mention other costs to support the event. (Extra police coverage? Extra treasurer's staff to levy and collect the taxes?)

I want a breakdown of that economic impact of the CWS. How much of that is hotels? Shouldn't the hotels be paying more of a share of the costs? How much of that is restaurants? Instead of charging an additional tax for consumers, shouldn't the restaurants that benefit pick up a larger share of the tab? Where is our title sponsor (i.e., "Hilton Park"?) Where are the private donors? Who is going to occupy this facility the other 50 weeks of the year, and what kind of rent are they paying (the Royals are saying, "Hey, we didn't ask for this, and we can't afford to pay market rents. But if you build it, we'll play in it. As long as you charge us cheap rent, that is.")

Unbelievable.

I understand that it's nice to have Omaha on TV for those two weeks, but I don't think we should sell our soul to keep this event. Even for a 20-year contract (which I doubt we'll get; or it will be 10 years with a 10-year option, if we spend $$$$$$$$ more at that point.)

Maybe I'm just jaded.
Go to Top of Page

admin
U!N!O!

10825 Posts

Posted - 10/04/2007 :  6:39:30 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Keep in mind that the city already charges ~$2 "seat fee" on all tickets sold at events at the Qwest Center, Civic Auditorium and Rosenblatt Stadium.

Two percent of a $15 ticket is roughly 30 cents. Not much on the surface, but when you add it to the $2 it is $2.30 you are paying the city -- and it can add up.

It means that events (like UNO Hockey) will inevitably cost more for consumers to attend.

UNO already has to increase their per ticket price to cover the $2 seat fee that is in place. Essentially, the city is going to be "taxing a tax" when they tax tickets because their seat fee is included in the per ticket price.

Will the tax kick in "before" UNO adds in the existing seat fee or "after"?

I know that $2.30 per ticket per game doesn't seem like much, but taken over the course of the hockey season, that is roughly $46 per season ticket (assuming an average price of $15).

On a pair of season tickets, that is roughly $92 you are paying the city in fees per year (on a $15 ticket).

And that is disconcerting because it is a considerable amount of money that UNO (in this example) has to collect on behalf of city hall.

The mayor also wants to tax food and beverages at restaurants.

Food/beverage at restaurants is already subject to our 7% sales tax. When you add in the mayor's new 2% fee, that is 9%.

That means that a mother of five who buys her kids lunch at McDonald's is going to pay 9 cents on every dollar spent. If she purchases $20 worth of food, she'll pay an additional $1.80 to the city in taxes. That's 40 cents more than she is currently paying.

I don't know how consumers will feel about paying nearly 10% in sales taxes when they go out to eat.

But I do wonder this...

If the CWS brings in such a tremendous flow of outside revenue (they claim to the tune of $40 million per annum), then why can't we simply raise pillow taxes and occupancy fees (for things like hotel rooms and rental cars) to cover the CWS?

Why can't we merely add an extra tax/fee onto CWS tickets?

I said in an earlier post that I was concerned about the city milking consumers who attend other events at city-owned facilities to pay for CWS improvements.

It isn't a big deal, but I think Fahey's reluctance in putting this to a vote could result in fees that become detrimental to other events in the city.

Once the facility is paid for, are we going to "rescind" this tax and take it away, or like everything else, is it simply going to "stay" (and possibly increase) over time?

Will consumers really want to pay 11% sales tax on food at Burger King someday?

We are tearing down a facility that we've pumped millions of dollars into over the course of the past decade. It is a facility where we've increased capacity and made "under the hood" improvements.

We are tearing it down to build what is essentially going to be a smaller "fixed-seat" facility.

Personally, I think the open air concourses that they have at Haymarket Park are largely overrated...all it does is encourage "loitering" which effectively eliminates any space advantage that wider concourses create.

Are we planning on recycling any of the new items we've put into Rosenblatt? Or are we merely going to demo and trash the whole thing?
Go to Top of Page

admin
U!N!O!

10825 Posts

Posted - 10/04/2007 :  7:06:39 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
In addition to the entertainment tax, Fahey hopes to use revenues from the convention center and arena parking, naming rights, stadium suites and team leases to pay off the bonds.


$6 parking just became $10 parking.

And I wonder if leases at all convention center/arena events (UNO Hockey and Creighton Basketball) will be subject to an increase in fees and charges associated with their respective events at the Qwest Center to help defray some of these costs.
Go to Top of Page

hackermav
Minister of Antagonism

1039 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2007 :  08:23:36 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
$6 parking just became $10 parking.


I don't think you'll see an increase in the cost. The fact that the city will now be able to charge $6 will be the increase he was referring to (more stalls than at Rosenblatt now).

quote:
And redevelopment of north downtown, and there was something else....oh, yes. A long-term contract for an event that brings in $40 million per year to the city. I mean, it's hardly worth mentioning...


I wasn't complaining about the redevelopment or the building of the new stadium, I was complaining about the damn size of the thing. Meaning that we are just rebuilding the damn stadium for the concourses and premium boxes, but yet making it smaller. Why are we making it smaller and then throwing out the 'possible future expansion' card? That is just Fahey trying to keep the costs down to lessen the public outcry. I feel that is a huge mistake. It has to be 30,000 or I think we are setting ourselves up to fail.
Go to Top of Page

mavaholic
Sophomore Mav

USA
342 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2007 :  08:50:13 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Would Omaha/douglas county be able to put a 3-5 dollar tax on every hotel room per night? Every other city has it. I don't think it will make any "yes or no" to visit omaha decsions of the general public, and people traveling for work could care less as long as their company is picking up the tab.....It's been awhile since I've had a room in omaha, since I live here, but what taxes are currently added on to everyone's bill for every night?

Do you believe in miracles? YES! --Al Michaels
Go to Top of Page

mavaholic
Sophomore Mav

USA
342 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2007 :  08:53:47 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
P.S. as an example, there are what....1,200 rooms in the old market area....1,200 x 365 x 5 = $2,190,000/year (in a perfect world where every room is booked every night, but this doesn't even count the other rooms across the city and county)

Do you believe in miracles? YES! --Al Michaels
Go to Top of Page

admin
U!N!O!

10825 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2007 :  10:04:29 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by mavaholic

P.S. as an example, there are what....1,200 rooms in the old market area....1,200 x 365 x 5 = $2,190,000/year (in a perfect world where every room is booked every night, but this doesn't even count the other rooms across the city and county)

Do you believe in miracles? YES! --Al Michaels




That was my thinking.

I know when we built the Qwest Center the city raised the pillow tax. I can't recall how much of an increase there was when we did that, but it was apparently fairly high.

There is more on the story today. Apparently things like movie tickets would be subjected to this "entertainment tax":

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10150165

Here's what I'd like to see them do. I think if we want to raise taxes on food/beverage and entertainment, it should be within a certain "zone" of Omaha -- namely downtown Omaha.

I realize people might stay all over the city when attending the CWS. However, the merchants that benefit the most from the $40 million "economic impact" will be in downtown.

I'd like to see a zone (roughly the old market on the south, the interstate on the west, the river on the east, and a few blocks north of Cuming) be labeled the "entertainment district."

And since we've already subsidized many of these developers with "tax-increment financing" to get them to retrofit old buildings and the like, it seems only natural that you have them collect the extra 2 percent.

I realize that enforcement is "easier" if you make it city-wide, but I think it'd be better to have a zone where the tax is enforced.

While the "trickle down" effect of the CWS might help all businesses, we all know that the downtown businesses are the ones that will make a mint on the CWS (compared to a business at 180th and W. Center).

You could also argue that the mayor's proposed "entertainment tax" is sort of a regressive tax -- where more moderate income earners are going to be effected negatively.

Here are some comments from the OWH this morning:

quote:
No Frills president Fred Witecy said time-strapped shoppers, not those with thick wallets, buy most prepared foods.

"Usually, people that buy prepared foods are working families tight on time," he said. "It doesn't really sound good to me because you're taking money out of the pockets of people who are working two jobs already. . . . And to fund a ballpark? That's really strange to me."



quote:
Pat Gobel, owner of the Dundee Dell, said 2 percent doesn't sound like much.

"But the customer looks at that tab at the bottom," Gobel said. "And over time, he's going to go: 'You know what, honey? Let's not go out tonight. Let's just do a couple burgers on the grill and stay home.' You can't keep adding it on to the end user and pretending it doesn't have an effect."


quote:
If the proposed tax hits movie tickets, theater owner Denny Moran said his Dundee Theatre and Westwood 8 theater would try not to pass the added cost to moviegoers.

"We probably have to absorb it as an independent," he said. "But it's like everything else. All costs eventually go back toward the consumer."

The Dundee recently raised its evening adult ticket price to $8, and Moran said that's expensive enough without an added tax. Other area theaters charge up to $8.75 for weekend evening shows. A 2 percent tax would push the total nearer $9.
Go to Top of Page

BIGHUSKERMAV
Senior Mav

1631 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2007 :  10:14:41 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Now I remember why I don't go to the theaters much. Is it really over $8 now? That is insane. Pirate away, folks!
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