3/2 News

[Section 37]

Originally Posted by Aero

I didn't write anything off as sour grapes. I simply said that it would be sour grapes if people decided not to attend games simply because the stadium ended up in Sandy instead of their preferred location downtown. It's easy to dismiss all of the points I've brought up because you believe I'm blaming it all on sour grapes though.

Hey, I haven't dismissed anything. In fact, didn't I concede the inflation point?

Originally Posted by Aero

So far, the only reason you have given for Sandy being bad is because you believe the downtown hotels, which are in the county, shouldn't have to pay for any development in Sandy because it isn't fair for them.

Not true

Originally Posted by Aero

What other reason have you given? Here's your chance, put together a list of pros and cons for both sites and let's have a look at it. Let's see some actual reasons why you consider it a bad idea or a good idea rather than you just declaring them as such.

How bout you sift through the past six months of my participation on this board on your own.

Originally Posted by Aero

Of course you don't. Just like you didn't buy into inflation or the idea that there are hotels outside SLC. You don't buy anything that goes against the ideas you want to continue to cling to.

Um, right. I gave you the inflation point.

Originally Posted by Aero

Why would anybody spend their own money if there was a way that they could get out of it? I'm sure that the parking was totally unnecessary and that the people willing to spend their money to build it were just throwing it away.

Right, since projects always succeed if rich men put money into them.

Originally Posted by Aero

And that has what to do with the stadium besides a cursory attachment to one of the people on the Salt Lake County Council who wasn't going to be using his money and wasn't even involved when the original downtown stadium plans were drawn up using SLC RDA money?

Like I said, it's an example of rich guys putting money into a dumb project.

Originally Posted by Aero

So I guess there should never be any future land development ever again because people have messed things up in the past. If that is the best reason you have for not wanting it in Sandy, I've got bad news for you. The same people would be involved in building it downtown too. Maybe we should just forget the whole idea of a stadium since it is obvious that some land development has had issues in the county before.

I never said that.

[Aero]

Originally Posted by Section 37

Hey, I haven't dismissed anything. In fact, didn't I concede the inflation point?

Yes, you did. After initially rejecting it without any kind of basis for doing so and after I had shown it to you, how could you not concede it?

How bout you sift through the past six months of my participation on this board on your own.

It shouldn't be too hard to put together a quick list of these items. You could probably do it in half the time you've spent on the numerous posts you've written to me.

Right, since projects always succeed if rich men put money into them.

I didn't say that. But if rich men want to put their own money into something, they should get to decide how they are going to do it and amazingly enough they sometimes succeed despite the foibles of others in the past.

Look, just about everyone wanted the stadium downtown. I know I did. But I think it is silly to continue to justify our own personal wants for the stadium going downtown by manufacturing bogus business reasons why downtown is a better place to build the stadium. Just call it like it is and say you want the stadium downtown because that's where you want it. Nobody can argue with that.

[Section 37]

Originally Posted by Aero

Look, just about everyone wanted the stadium downtown. I know I did. But I think it is silly to continue to justify our own personal wants for the stadium going downtown by manufacturing bogus business reasons why downtown is a better place to build the stadium. Just call it like it is and say you want the stadium downtown because that's where you want it. Nobody can argue with that.

Well of course I want it downtown. That much should be clear to everyone. But just because I'm the only one on this board who believes Sandy is a bad idea doesn't mean that it's some sort of personal crusade only.

Many people think Sandy is a bad idea. Many people think the stadium itself is a bad idea.

At least I'm still pro- stadium.

There are very cogent arguments against the stadium altogether. They're made by business, political, and economic leaders in this valley and those are the arguments you should be afraid of.

Just because you disagree doesn't make it bogus.

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by Section 37

Just because you disagree doesn't make it bogus.

No one has said that because you disagree... you are wrong... or bogus.

Equally because you are in the minority on an opinion does not make you right either...

You are allowed to disagree... everyone is... but don't get all bent out of shape when people challenge you. It is also their right to disagree with you!

If people think you are wrong they will tell you... it has nothing to do with whether you agree with the majority or not.

I have been called an infinite number of times because of points I make... by people that agree with me but think my reasoning is skewed... it is two different issues.

I wanted the stadium downtown... but after looking at the proposals it is obvious to me that Sandy is a better choice overall. Sandy will never have the coolness factor but I would rather hve a stadium in Sandy than no stadium at all.... cos lets face it...no matter how you slice it... the stadium was NEVER going downtown....

[Aero]

Originally Posted by Section 37

Well of course I want it downtown. That much should be clear to everyone. But just because I'm the only one on this board who believes Sandy is a bad idea doesn't mean that it's some sort of personal crusade only.

I don't think you are the only one that wants it downtown. I want it downtown. I just think that your reasons for wanting it are more personal than anything else. I can see why it makes sense from a business, and that's what RSL is, perspective to pick Sandy over downtown. The Sandy location has almost everything going for it when compared to downtown when looked at from a business perspective.

Many people think Sandy is a bad idea.

Yes, I know, but I have yet to hear too many reasons why they believe this way that hold up to much scrutiny.

Many people think the stadium itself is a bad idea.

And those people don't care where it is, so I'm not sure what they would have to do with a discussion about whether the stadium should go in Sandy or downtown.

At least I'm still pro- stadium.

Glad to hear it.

There are very cogent arguments against the stadium altogether. They're made by business, political, and economic leaders in this valley and those are the arguments you should be afraid of.

I agree. Those need to be dealt with too, but I thought we were having a discussion about where the stadium should be located, not whether the stadium should actually exist or not. Are you changing the subject on me?

Just because you disagree doesn't make it bogus.

It's not just because I disagree. It's because I haven't seen any substance backing these reasons up. All I hear is that it is bad to build the stadium in Sandy and good to build the stadium downtown without any reasons given for those opinions. I'd love to hear of some valid reasons why it should go downtown over Sandy that might be used to get them to change their mind. So far, that just hasn't happened yet. If you can back these statments up with more than just "Sandy bad, downtown good" I'd love to see it.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Section 37

There are very cogent arguments against the stadium altogether. They're made by business, political, and economic leaders in this valley and those are the arguments you should be afraid of.

Those are the arguments that the RSL press/PR machine needs to go after and neutralize, not these silly "I hate Sandy!" arguments based on grand theft stadium (which is not a crime, just like skateboarding).

Oh, and by the way, we are all grassroots members of the RSL press/PR machine. If we cannot defend the stadium when talking with people who are unfamiliar (or altogether far too familiar) with the issue, we are doing Real Salt Lake a disservice. It's fine to say, "Hey, I would have loved to have the stadium downtown, but unfortunately, that just doesn't appear to 1) be in the cards and 2) be a good idea for the team, especially considering how Salt Lake City treated the idea (the fairgrounds? you've got to be kidding me.)." Obsessing over it isn't helping anyone.

Let's focus on things we CAN do, like convince people that going to Real Salt Lake games is a good way to spend their hard earned money.

For those of us here who really thought having the stadium downtown would be cool, what are we doing to convince Salt Lake to make a COMPETITIVE bid? The "downtown" label is only worth so much $$$. Obviously, RSL felt the Sandy offer was better. Let SLC compete. Use the hotel tax to build the stadium downtown! Wow, there's an idea! The ground hasn't been broken yet. As I have said from the beginning, LET SLC, IF IT REALLY WANTS THE STADIUM SO BADLY, COMPETE WITH SANDY! Competition is a good, healthy thing.

WHEN DOES THE GORAM SEASON START!?!?!?!?! NOW! I WANT IT NOW!

:rei: Geoff
-----------------------
REGULATORS! Mount up!

[freedom]

First off, I want your job(s).

Here is the list of Pro's and Con's as I see them. Feel free to add/modify.

SL City
Pro

• Downtown Restaurants & Bars
• Section 37 wants it there
• Cental location
• Transportation in place
• Existing parking lots
• Most everyone's 1st choice

Con

• Rocky Anderson
• Limited Available Land
• Training grounds will need additional land/funding
• SLCi fleeced $10M
• Parking not necessarily close to stadium
• RSL is not in SL-proper

Sandy
Pro

• Well-connected Republican City
• Ample land for stadium and training grounds
• Business offices at stadium sites
• "Soccer City" can be a reality

Con

• Infrastructure/Parking needed
• No nightlife or character in area

[RSLfrontrowfan]

Originally Posted by Section 37

Look, there's an easy way to prove to me you're right. Show us some numbers.

Sorry, I really don't want to get involved in this but when I got to this point in the thread I just laughed. You're asking for numbers as proof against your arguments but not providing any numbers as proof in your own arguments. For example:

Originally Posted by Section 37

The whole "there are hotels outside SLC" just doesn't make an impact with me.

Come on. That $45 million is coming out of the pockets of downtown businesses almost exclusively. The idea that the motels strung across the freeway offramps will contribute much to the project is a joke when you consider the thousands of high- priced hotel rooms downtown that fill for business conventions and skiers.

Do you have statistics to support your argument about hotel rooms? Do you know the number of hotel rooms downtown compared to those in the county outside of downtown? I think if you really looked into this the proportion wouldn't end up being as lopsided as you think it is ("Almost exclusively" to me = 90%+ which I know isn't the case). There are plenty of hotels outside of downtown. In fact there may be more hotel rooms in the county outside of downtown than in downtown proper itself. There are tons of hotels out West of the airport for example.

[utah_heretic]

In the effort of providing facts, I made a cursory attempt at finding hotel room numbers...couldn't find a county listing for numbers of rooms, so I looked on Expedia.

Of the 105 listings, 87 are in Salt Lake County.

7 of those are in Sandy
3 in South Jordan
2 in Draper
6 in Midvale
4 in WVC
2 in NSL
3 in Murray
and 59 in Salt Lake.

Though that looks significant, I really wish I could have come up with some room numbers. I'd be willing to bet that the number of rooms represented by the Little America alone would be more than half of the rooms available in Sandy.

Aero, you guys are welcome to play propoganda with this all you want, but these numbers make it look like SLC will be footing a disproportionate percentage of the load.

Now, Deuce is going to jump in and say...Wait!!! It's not SLC who's paying, it's the tourists!! You can argue that on a single night, a $100 room will be taxed $1.50. Do you think that the hotel wouldn't be happy to have that $1.50 multiplied by the number of nights of occupancy for all the rooms for 10 years?

Now don't be totally fooled by the Hotel either, Since this is a tax, they can continue to advertise the same price, and you won't notice until you receive the bill, but to say, "they'll just pass that on to the consumer" is a radical oversimplification. This will impact profits...though it would be difficult to get a baseline for the data, since the tax has been extant so long. But you can bet hotels were looking to make a few extra sheckles with it's sunset.

It's also not true that SLC hotels do not stand to gain from tourism generated by the stadium, though clearly not at the level that the world cup qualifier generated, since they are only planning on 20K seats.

Ultimately it would take me too long to list the number of false analogies, misrepresentative statements, and outright falsehoods I read that forced me to respond to this post. From a traffic perspective, from a development perspective where walkable communities are emphasized, with less need for automobile traffic, a Sandy Stadium is a huge step backward. However, it's not the end of the world either...in all likelihood, those people who hoped to enjoy a night out with their game still can, it just means a couple of crowded TRAX rides from and back to downtown. I wholeheartedly disagree that a stadium in sandy is more for the money...oh I'm sure it's more space, and more land, but the stadium will be as much of an anomaly in Sandy as the HDC is in Carson.

Laura, you guys can park at my house and ride TRAX down with me if you want.

[Aero]

Originally Posted by utah_heretic

Of the 105 listings, 87 are in Salt Lake County.

7 of those are in Sandy
3 in South Jordan
2 in Draper
6 in Midvale
4 in WVC
2 in NSL
3 in Murray
and 59 in Salt Lake.

I'm not sure just how accurate those numbers are. There is plenty of places classified as Salt Lake City that are no where near Salt Lake City. I live in one. Where I live, it is considered Salt Lake City as my official address, but I live close to 5600 W and 5600 S. I think the only way to truly get an accurate count would be to do this search by zip code.

Aero, you guys are welcome to play propoganda with this all you want, but these numbers make it look like SLC will be footing a disproportionate percentage of the load.

I never really said that they wouldn't be doing that. My only point was that the money is county money and it is still being spent in the county. All of the hotels in SLC are also in Salt Lake County aren't they? Were not talking about the cities individually, but the county as a whole.