Soccer Stadium Dead?

Remus · 01-09-2007, 08:45 AM

I heard this on the radio this morning...

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4973281

Looks like someone knows how to cut and run.

Aerick · 01-09-2007, 10:03 AM

Please no!

praxis · 01-09-2007, 10:38 AM

Forget the south. Put the stadium in Ogden. The rich players can live in Huntsville, the poor people can live in Ogden with me. And I am sure that Weber county would approve. Ogden has been trying to get something like this done for 20 years.

Merrill · 01-09-2007, 10:57 AM

curtis is just trying to show the people who almost didn't elect him that he is done with soccer no matter what. the guy only won reelection by something like 12 votes. I think he's trying to make sure that all those who vote for him know that he has learned his lesson.

Personally, after this session, I never want to hear the word Curtis again.

rabble-rabble · 01-09-2007, 01:27 PM

I've cooled off a bit since my rant on another board. What really ticks me off though is that were is not for meddling by Bramble and Curtis, we could very possibly be starting the 2007 season in a soccer stadium in downtown Salt Lake, but those 2 pushed through legislation to block Salt Lake City from using RDA funds to acquire the needed land. Later Curtis and other came up with the plan for Sandy which would use the same type of RDA funds. Now that he's facing some opposition to putting this 'pet project' in his backyard, Curtis wants to give up the fight.

soccerman · 01-09-2007, 02:10 PM

I don't know who all here is posting on this subject in other places, but for the love of gravy can we all agree that this deal does involve Salt Lake County taxpayer money. I'm so sick of morons who keep posting that this deal isn't paid for by Salt Lake County residents (which I ain't) because the revenue is generated by a hotel tax. That is stupid. Money that is "earned" (the way the taxman earns his money) by Salt Lake County is money that now belongs to Salt Lake County. I think an argument can be made that the stadium might be a good investment for taxpayers, but the non-stop "this isn't funded by Salt Lake tax payers" baloney makes some stadium supporters seem ignorant, deceitful or both.

rabble-rabble · 01-09-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soccerman

I don't know who all here is posting on this subject in other places, but for the love of gravy can we all agree that this deal does involve Salt Lake County taxpayer money. I'm so sick of morons who keep posting that this deal isn't paid for by Salt Lake County residents (which I ain't) because the revenue is generated by a hotel tax. That is stupid. Money that is "earned" (the way the taxman earns his money) by Salt Lake County is money that now belongs to Salt Lake County. I think an argument can be made that the stadium might be a good investment for taxpayers, but the non-stop "this isn't funded by Salt Lake tax payers" baloney makes some stadium supporters seem ignorant, deceitful or both.

Of course this also goes for many of the arguments against the stadium I have read that criticize the plan and effectively describe it as corporate welfare with no return at all to the taxpayers.

I've seen far too few of people on both sides who actually listen to the concerns of those with differing viewpoints. There has been a complete lack of communication and cooperation between the two sides on this issue from day one.

Personally, I feel that money INVESTED by the public would have eventually seen benefits in taxes generated by the stadium and increased business activity, and that it would have been a good thing for the community, but of course there is no way to prove that would be the case unless the thing is actually built. It may of course been quite possible that the public would have seen a small fraction on their investment ever paid off.

At this point, I fear that this opportunity may be gone and that we'll be back to going without live soccer or cheering on a PDL team at a high football field.

🙁

soccerman · 01-09-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabble-rabble

Personally, I feel that money INVESTED by the public would have eventually seen benefits in taxes generated by the stadium and increased business activity, and that it would have been a good thing for the community

I agree with you 100%

praxis · 01-09-2007, 05:50 PM

me too. as a tax[ayer i want my money invested. if the fo count have pointed out that the money would be spent, but would see a return a lot of hoo haw could have been avoided.

Soccer gods hear my prayer: let us keep RSL

Balanceut · 01-09-2007, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remus

I heard this on the radio this morning...

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4973281

Looks like someone knows how to cut and run.

I don't think this kills the deal. But, I've not heard any news since this AM.

I'm thinking that Curtis just wants a divorce for politics sake. He needs to shore up votes and regain political power on the hill where his razor thin victory made him appear vulnerable. I think the thing is out of Curtis's hands at this point and is up to SL county and other local governmental agencies for approval and negotiation with RSL.

At least, that is what I'm hoping is the case.