Soccer and Politics (5/29 editorial)

HibaIssa · 05-29-2005, 11:41 AM

Soccer stadium fiasco just latest GOP jab at Salt Lake City

It makes me mad that now the soccer stadium debate is now complete politics. Like I’ve said many times, it seems like these people are more concerned with what will gain them a political advantage rather than what is best for RSL and the fans (whatever that may be).

I hate to bring politics to this place because I know how many times it doesn’t end well, but I think it’s an interesting point to bring up. 🙂

SpiffCoug · 05-29-2005, 11:55 AM

I still can't believe that Salt Lake County has $150 million surplus and they can't find a way to help build a stadium? Am I missing something?

Rover · 05-29-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HibaIssa

Soccer stadium fiasco just latest GOP jab at Salt Lake City

It makes me mad that now the soccer stadium debate is now complete politics. Like I’ve said many times, it seems like these people are more concerned with what will gain them a political advantage rather than what is best for RSL and the fans (whatever that may be).

I hate to bring politics to this place because I know how many times it doesn’t end well, but I think it’s an interesting point to bring up. 🙂

Interesting article, although quite a bit of conjecture (re: lack of actual proof), but the media's been good at that lately.

I don't like that RSL's stadium is caught in the middle of this internal political battle, but if that's the way it is then I get the sense that Uncle Dave will know how to use it to our advantage. It certainly beats being ignored by everyone.

I also don't like it much because I'm convinced that the stadium should be downtown. We need to play in the heart of the central city of the State.

A few other points of interest from the article:

1. Quote: "The reward [for landing the stadium], of course, is an expanded tax base and tremendous economic development potential for the host city."

That's a long way from the stuff we were hearing from editorialists and others a few months ago about how little a soccer stadium would bring to the host city.

2. I live in a heavily Republican district in a state with a solidly Democratic legislature. Guess what? We don't get much of what we want out of Sacramento either. That's the way it is, at least for now, so we have to deal with it. Either SLC should elect some Republicans for a change, or they should learn to work with the reality statewide if they want a place at the table.

3. I saw no quotes or even any positions taken by RSL. Kind of a glaring omission. RSL does have a vote in this process.

4. SLC should have done better than the Fairpark proposal as a counter to Sandy. I know of nobody who actually wants the stadium at the Fairpark.

Loyal1 · 05-29-2005, 02:08 PM

[sarcasm on]
Nearly a third of legislators are demos? Better redistrict and lower that number! [sarcasm off]

Man, do I miss Barberi.

Stucki · 05-29-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loyal1

[sarcasm on]
Nearly a third of legislators are demos? Better redistrict and lower that number! [sarcasm off]

Man, do I miss Barberi.

The most amusing thing is that Barberi was a California Republican before he moved to the home of the Cowboy Caucus and Eagle Forum.

the cup · 05-30-2005, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rover

4. SLC should have done better than the Fairpark proposal as a counter to Sandy. I know of nobody who actually wants the stadium at the Fairpark.

I like the Fairpark idea. Here is a copy of a post I wrote over on Bigsoccer explaining a few reasons why.

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

"People keep talking about the stadium needing to be close to restaurants and other entertainment in order for it to be successful. You can't get any closer than the Fairpark location. I can get to Gateway and Downtown from the Fairpark twice as fast than I can from Rice Eccles and nobody is complaining about Rice Eccles. Hell, I can walk out of the Fairgrounds, stand on the Southeast corner and see the Gateway and Downtown. It is that close.

You have to think in the long term. TRAX will eventually run right by the Fairgrounds. Maybe not next year, but in the not too distant future it will.

People keep saying that the Fairgrounds has no atmosphere. Well at the moment yes, but that's because ReAL hasn't taken over there yet. But believe me, once the stadium is built, once the secondary soccer field is built along with other improvements, and once Carnival Real gets the place rocking they might as well change the name from the Fairgrounds to the Soccer Grounds.

ReAL would transform that Fairgrounds to the point that people would start thinking, "What else do they use this area for? Oh yea, the state fair."

People keep saying its in a residential area which is a downside. Keep in mind, alot of ReAL's fans live in that residential area. How nice is it going to be for them to just be able to walk to the game?

Finally, yea, the team at first vetoed the Fairgrounds idea but that was before Bramble. Reality is is that there are MLS teams that have been stuck in bad stadiums for ten years loosing a hell of alot of money. We can't afford that. The Fairgrounds needs us, we need a stadium, and the land is free. Murray still hasn't come up with an model for funding (at least that we know of) Sandy would be using money that was given to them for something else which could be seen as unethical (how would that reflect on ReAL) and Block 22 is being paved over for Grand America and Little America employee parking.

We are being offered free land for a stadium which has other open land where we could create our own atmosphere and history, all of which is close to downtown, in the heart of where many of our fans live, and will some day, not too far off, be serviced by light rail public transportation.

Imagine, Soccer Grounds."

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

Now I may not know what the hell I'm talking about but those are just a few ideas.

Stucki · 05-30-2005, 12:29 AM

It hasn't worked quite that way for the Crew, but I don't know exactly the Ohio State Fairgrounds are in relation to downtown Columbus.

HibaIssa · 05-30-2005, 12:30 AM

Nice. I'm actually all for the Fairgrounds. Right now it's at the top of my list for locations (other than downtown).

Stucki · 05-30-2005, 12:35 AM

I will go to the games anywhere the stadium gets built. I would prefer downtown, but as long as UTA (especially TRAX) is part of the answer for spectator travel, then I will be fine with it.

the Bardguy · 05-30-2005, 12:36 AM

I gotta say, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me where the stadium is, I drive in from Herriman/Riverton for every match. I know that there are a lot of people that will travel to wherever the match would be, regardless. Now I can grant that maybe because I don't live or work downtown, I don't have the proper perspective, but really, why does the location really matter? I think that the cup has a good point: that we can make this ours wherever it is. "Soccer Grounds." It's not too bad...

I just think that if fans want to go to the match, they'll find a way to the match. Is that too naive?

I think that you can argue that the economic impact of a stadium on the surrounding areas has been shown to be negligable, so if it's true that the Fairgrounds deal is basically free land, and there aren't significant government subsidies, I'm all for that.

Just my .02.