Senator backs RSL beer sales as taxpayer-friendly funding

Old Ska · 06-30-2005, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rover

Not unlike Green Bay Packer fans, who prove that Americans are capable of showing up for cold weather games.

Woo-Hoo! Go Green Bay!

Rep for Rover forthcoming.

rabble-rabble · 06-30-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bordelais7

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.

Kind of reminds me of The Simpsons episode where Burns tried to take away the company dental plan by giving the workers a keg of beer.

Aero · 06-30-2005, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jose Luis Luviano

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

So, neither the Delta Center or the E-Center have been good for the growth of either surrounding area? I think that having the Jazz here in Utah has been great for the state and I have a hard time imagining anything but fields where all of those restaurants and hotels are out in West Valley without the E-Center. Maybe we just have different definitions of "positive long term financial impacts." What do you mean by it?

RSLfrontrowfan · 06-30-2005, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabble-rabble

Kind of reminds me of The Simpsons episode where Burns tried to take away the company dental plan by giving the workers a keg of beer.

Dental plan, Lisa needs braces, dental plan, Lisa needs braces, dental plan...

Stucki · 06-30-2005, 09:35 AM

Howard Stevenson and the Utah Taxpayers Association, a front for developers primarily from what I understand, is also against existing taxes. They don't know what the impact will be because they never think long term.

Old Ska · 06-30-2005, 09:43 AM

Here is why I think a stadium funded by tax dollars is a bad idea, especially in Utah...

It has nothing to do with whether a stadium will or will not actually decrease anyone's standard of living...that is going to be hard to measure. The fact is that in Utah there will always be very vocal people who make it seem like it is. Utah is a conservative state, and the tax issue will always be a big one whether it is justified or not. Proposals for hostitals sometimes get shot down if it means a tax increase. I lived in a place in Utah where they wanted to install 6 blocks of street lights to deter sexual assaults at a cost of about $.05 per person in the community and it got shot down because it was a tax increase. There is no way the midset will be changed to allow a soccer stadium. And even if by some miracle it was forced through by politicians, the bad feelings that would result would not be worth it.

Let RSL pay for it. Get corporate sponsors and private donations. Sell stadium shares that guarantee access to season tickets if MLS would let them. For RSL in the long run anything, even not having a SSS, would be better than having a taxpayer financed one forced through.

Stucki · 06-30-2005, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Ska

Here is why I think a stadium funded by tax dollars is a bad idea, especially in Utah...

It has nothing to do with whether a stadium will or will not actually decrease anyone's standard of living...that is going to be hard to measure. The fact is that in Utah there will always be very vocal people who make it seem like it is. Utah is a conservative state, and the tax issue will always be a big one whether it is justified or not. Proposals for hostitals sometimes get shot down if it means a tax increase. I lived in a place in Utah where they wanted to install 6 blocks of street lights to deter sexual assaults at a cost of about $.05 per person in the community and it got shot down because it was a tax increase. There is no way the midset will be changed to allow a soccer stadium. And even if by some miracle it was forced through by politicians, the bad feelings that would result would not be worth it.

Let RSL pay for it. Get corporate sponsors and private donations. Sell stadium shares that guarantee access to season tickets if MLS would let them. For RSL in the long run anything, even not having a SSS, would be better than having a taxpayer financed one forced through.

This is true, but the negative feelings against TRAX went away very quickly after the system was shoved down peoples' throats.

Aero · 06-30-2005, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrstucki

This is true, but the negative feelings against TRAX went away very quickly after the system was shoved down peoples' throats.

And the Delta Center and the E-Center. I don't really hear about how people are resentful towards either one of those now.

Stucki · 06-30-2005, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aero

And the Delta Center and the E-Center. I don't really hear about how people are resentful towards either one of those now.

I don't remember a whole lot about the E Center, but wasn't the only public financing for the Delta Center the land that was donated?

Aero · 06-30-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrstucki

I don't remember a whole lot about the E Center, but wasn't the only public financing for the Delta Center the land that was donated?

I don't remember all the details, but I do know that it did receive some public assistance. It wasn't much and maybe all it was was the land, but even that is some. My point is that no one harbors any bad feelings over the Delta Center or the Jazz. In fact, as we have shown, very few people actually even remember that public assistance was even used at all.