Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Dispatch -- Arena Deal No Windfall for Public

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Dispatch — Arena Deal No Windfall for Public

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 67 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #543495

    buckeyecpa
    Participant

    Coremodels said:
    Deciding to force the public to own an arena when they voted against it multiple times (and never for it) is shameful.

    Diverting the money from the casino to pay for it is shameful.

    There are many things the public would vote down that sees government money. There are also many things that lack revenue, growth, and stimulation that has a lot of support especially on here.

    #543496
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    buckeyecpa said:
    There are many things the public would vote down that sees government money. There are also many things that lack revenue, growth, and stimulation that has a lot of support especially on here.

    This isn’t a hypothetical about what the public would vote down.

    There was a vote. THere was more than one vote. The public voted against it in each.

    #543497

    DTown
    Participant

    buckeyecpa said:
    There are many things the public would vote down that sees government money. There are also many things that lack revenue, growth, and stimulation that has a lot of support especially on here.

    For instance?

    #543498

    ehill27
    Participant

    The prior arena vote was for a sales tax increase, while no such tax increase was part of this plan. I say bring the vote on, I have little doubt it will pass.

    Can’t help but wonder what other government funded issues that don’t include tax increases we should have voted on. Scioto mile? CoGo bike share? 5th Ave dam removal? 70/71 split? OARS sewer tunnel?

    #543499

    JeepGirl
    Participant

    ehill27 said:
    The prior arena vote was for a sales tax increase, while no such tax increase was part of this plan. I say bring the vote on, I have little doubt it will pass.

    Can’t help but wonder what other government funded issues that don’t include tax increases we should have voted on. Scioto mile? CoGo bike share? 5th Ave dam removal? 70/71 split? OARS sewer tunnel?

    Funny that none of the funded expenditures you listed were privately-owned financial failures before becoming public property. While those issues weren’t presented to the voters to make a choice, the public ownership of an arena was many times, and defeated each time. It was very clear what the voters did not want, and it’s also very clear that the will of the public was disregarded.

    #543500
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    ehill27 said:
    The prior arena vote was for a sales tax increase, while no such tax increase was part of this plan. I say bring the vote on, I have little doubt it will pass.

    I don’t share your doubt. Redirecting this huge portion of the casino tax from all the places it was supposed to go in order to support a publicly owned arena when voters have made it clear they didn’t want one would hardly be a breeze at the polls.

    #543501

    RedStorm
    Participant

    Core – it’s $9.5 million a year. While nothing to scoff at, it’s not a “huge” amount.

    #543502
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    What is the ultimate goal of the opposition?

    #543503

    susank
    Member

    Snarf said:
    What is the ultimate goal of the opposition?

    Good point, it seems like a big item to try and return. It probably only had a 30 day return policy. ;)

    #543504

    gramarye
    Participant

    susank said:
    Good point, it seems like a big item to try and return. It probably only had a 30 day return policy. ;)

    Don’t tell that to some of these people. If I had to guess, some of them would not be above defaulting on a municipal debt if they gained the power to do so; they strike me as much the same crowd who still lionizes Dennis Kucinich for doing so in the city of Cleveland when he was mayor there.

    #543505

    pilsner
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    Don’t tell that to some of these people. If I had to guess, some of them would not be above defaulting on a municipal debt if they gained the power to do so; they strike me as much the same crowd who still lionizes Dennis Kucinich for doing so in the city of Cleveland when he was mayor there.

    As opposed to the way you seem to support a system in which politicians are entrenched because they are appointed to do the bidding of suburban tycoons, corporations and real-estate developers? And you seem to support the status quo of Columbus being the only major city in the country with an all at-large city council as discussed in this thread: https://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/democracy-in-columbus

    Also, the people of Columbus passed campaign finance reform but City Hall didn’t implement it. Just like the 5 times voters turned down public arena funding and then the city turns around and gives the arena owners $250 million of corporate welfare.

    As George McGovern said, “…the destiny of America is always safer in the hands of the people then in the conference rooms of any elite.”

    #543506

    pez
    Participant

    I have a feeling that the deal was structured in a way that unwinding it will result in both significantly more expense and egg on the face of the city.

    #543507
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    Snarf said:
    What is the ultimate goal of the opposition?

    Personally, I’m just angry about it without any expectations of it changing. I can only imagine the backlash if this much money had been pulled from the casino in order to build a streetcar without a vote.

    ETA: and for the record, as big of an advocate as I am of rail…I wouldn’t be happy if it was done that way.

    #543508

    buckeyecpa
    Participant

    And somehow Columbus is still one of the most stable cities. I’d say everyone involved is doing something right. This arena benefits the city. I’m against public funding of NFL and NBA arenas. Usually they are built over the top and those leagues want to replace every ten years now it seems. This arena I was opposed to city funding at the initial. It was a risky development in an area that had potential but nothing is every guaranteed. We bought the arena back at a discount although had to give up on some income producing items within. We’ll be ok with this purchase. There are a lot of eyes on this. And again, it is a proven revenue stream. Many are benefiting off this. You just have to step away from the overall purchase price and break it down to the years and how much revenue will come in those years to the whole city.

    The city and county and even federal give government money to many things. Maybe not as high as this but it all adds up. The failed development project now turned subsidized is a prime example. On that development there’s little chance the city would have ever seen a dime but yet they gave the money when it was simply a plan on paper. Wonderland is another example. They received government money when it was simply a few guys ideas. People here supported it. Again, less money but still projects that have no revenue streams.

    #543509

    buckeyecpa
    Participant

    Coremodels said:
    Personally, I’m just angry about it without any expectations of it changing. I can only imagine the backlash if this much money had been pulled from the casino in order to build a streetcar without a vote.

    ETA: and for the record, as big of an advocate as I am of rail…I wouldn’t be happy if it was done that way.

    I understand what you’re saying. And I do agree with you on how I’d feel about the rail car. So I’m being a hypocrite which I acknowledge. But I truly believe the public is wrong on this project at this point. Voting it down initially was the right choice. But taking it over now was the right thing to do. The investment terms (expense:income for all) is a good thing. No one can really argue against that and support their statement.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 67 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE