Senator backs RSL beer sales as taxpayer-friendly funding

the cup · 06-29-2005, 10:07 PM

Whatever happened to the "Coalition of the Willing" that came about after Checketts met with Huntsman, Bramble and Garber?

devNull · 06-29-2005, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocky J Squirrel

This whole beer sales bit is a PR program by the Utah Taxpayers Association which has as it President Howard A. Stephenson to discredit the idea of a Soccer Specific Stadium. See what theyare saying at utahtaxpayers.org and check out the 6 page soccer stadium pdf link.
Shame on the Trib for letting a PR spout off get in the paper as news!

Thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate the added information. I agree shame on the Trib for letting someone so obviously biased get such a big stage in the paper w/out at least pointing out a few of the important details (Stephenson is the head of an organization basically against ANY new taxes).

the cup · 06-29-2005, 10:29 PM

Where did I leave that box of chalk?

Aerick · 06-29-2005, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devNull

Thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate the added information. I agree shame on the Trib for letting someone so obviously biased get such a big stage in the paper w/out at least pointing out a few of the important details (Stephenson is the head of an organization basically against ANY new taxes).

While I agree with a group that tries to hold people accountable for introducing new taxation, isn't this the type of project that could have long term financial implications for the state of Utah in a positive way?

Aerick · 06-29-2005, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocky J Squirrel

This whole beer sales bit is a PR program by the Utah Taxpayers Association which has as it President Howard A. Stephenson to discredit the idea of a Soccer Specific Stadium. See what theyare saying at utahtaxpayers.org and check out the 6 page soccer stadium pdf link.
Shame on the Trib for letting a PR spout off get in the paper as news!

(see my recent posts in the Ultimate Stadium thread at Big Soccer)

Modification of RES to better host soccer is without a valid finacial or technical basis. However politicians (who decide what money the U gets would like someone else to pay the remaining $22,000,000 for the Olympic (read football team benifitting) renovations. Suprise! a healthy Real could do it if they outlaw all options for a SSS. Also the Athletic Department is looking to eventually replace the South End structure. Reasons include additional seating and BCS equivalent dressing rooms etc. You must be impressive to those recruits or they will go to BYU or Nebraska or Ohio or...... So why not get a captive Co-Tenat to pay?

This is great information. Someone with a solid understanding of this should write an opinion piece for the Trib and/or Desnews. I have a fear that if we are quiet on this issue, aside from the moans and groans on this forum, it might take a path none of us want to see. We need to be as informed as possible about the situation, and then make our knowledgeable opinions known.

DadOf8 · 06-29-2005, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerick

This is great information. Someone with a solid understanding of this should write an opinion piece for the Trib and/or Desnews. I have a fear that if we are quite on this issue, aside from the moans and groans on this forum, it might take a path none of us want to see. We need to be as informed as possible about the situation, and then make our knowledgeable opinions known.

Thanks Aerick, I think that's a great idea and I'd rep you for it if I had any left. I would also hope that if anyone has a good understanding of the issue would enlighten the rest of us in layman's terms. If we work together, even though we might be a minority, our voice will be heard. A lot of times it the minority groups that get things done because they're the most vocal. I like your point about us becoming informed on this issue, I think it's important that we don't go off half-baked on this issue.

dysko · 06-29-2005, 10:52 PM

The only way I could see Uncle DAve going for this is if the U renegotiated to allow him to keep 100% of the profits. It isn't about beer it is about money for the soccer team.

The Trib is pretty dumb to go for that...

montgjules · 06-30-2005, 07:32 AM

OH no, not another Loyalists rant! Remember the FO: stay positive w/ the media. Please, people, if you write, do NOT mention the Loyalists at all!

bordelais7 · 06-30-2005, 09:18 AM

Howard Stephenson is the media? :dontknow:

Or were you just talking about not attaching the Loyalist label to any unofficial letter(s) to the editor or to any emails?

I think it's clear that there are some Loyalists that would be opposed to any increase of tax to fund a stadium, while there are also some that would be for it. However, what angers me about this particular situation is the false perception that is being created that "give 'em beer, and they'll be happy." I certainly think some clarification is in order.

Jose Luis Luviano · 06-30-2005, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerick

While I agree with a group that tries to hold people accountable for introducing new taxation, isn't this the type of project that could have long term financial implications for the state of Utah in a positive way?

Taxpayer-funded pro sports facilities never have positive long term financial impacts. Except for players & owners.

Every reputable economist on the right and the left agrees with this.