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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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 - 46 through 60 (of 67 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #543525

    NDaEast
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    Is the actual contract documentation available online somewhere? I’m curious as to what the actual implications of default (or non-payment even if it isn’t styled as a “default”) would be.

    City Auditor Hugh Dorrian emailed me the 12/8/11 draft, which he told me is what was enacted. It is on page 9, Section 303 – Nonappropriation of Funds. All that happens is that the lessees have to “peaceably surrender its interests to the CFA.” I have it in a PDF if you want to send me your email address by message.

    #543526

    RedStorm
    Participant

    Correct me if I’m wrong – the “5 times Columbus voted against it” argument is based on the fact that those would have resulted in an increase in tax, correct? This current deal doesn’t raise taxes on anyone, right? So the city didn’t purely vote no against a publicly-owned arena, they voted against raising taxes in getting there.

    #543527

    ehill27
    Participant

    Exactly.

    #543528
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    RedStorm said:
    Correct me if I’m wrong – the “5 times Columbus voted against it” argument is based on the fact that those would have resulted in an increase in tax, correct? This current deal doesn’t raise taxes on anyone, right? So the city didn’t purely vote no against a publicly-owned arena, they voted against raising taxes in getting there.

    And while this didn’t technically raise taxes, it diverted a ton of tax income that was specifically meant for other things (things which were promised to Columbus voters when they did vote in favor of that income).

    #543529

    ehill27
    Participant

    Technically, Columbus voters voted against the Casino. Democracy is ironic.

    #543530
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    ehill27 said:
    Technically, Columbus voters voted against the Casino. Democracy is ironic.

    Technically, it doesn’t matter and that argument is as ridiculous now as it always has been.

    I don’t hear anyone claiming that “X city didn’t vote for Kasich so he shouldn’t be the Governor”.

    That said, “democracy” doesn’t really have a place in a discussion of this situation.

    #543531

    pez
    Participant

    NDaEast said:
    Actually, it is a 27.5 year lease, in which the Auditor agrees to annually certify that money from the casino tax receipts is available, and then Council will pass legislation to make the lease payment.

    The lease specifies that if the money is not certified as available or appropriated, there is absolutely no penalty for the City or County except Nationwide (the mortgage holder) gets its arena back. The lease had to be written in this manner, because no city council can encumber funds for future years, so like all city leases it is essentially a one year lease.

    The Coalition’s proposal is simply for those annual lease payments to stop if the voters do not approve Arena funding prior to January 1, 2016.

    Nationwide would have to foreclose on the arena. The purchase was made via revenue bonds tied to the profits of the casinos, so there is a (somewhat) guaranteed stream of money earmarked to make the payments. The city would be committing financial suicide by not making bond payments and risking Their S&P rating. Also, I’m not sure what you mean that council can’t encumber future funds, it’s done all the time in bond sales, employment contracts, office leases, etc.

    #543532

    ehill27
    Participant

    Coremodels said:
    Technically, it doesn’t matter and that argument is as ridiculous now as it always has been.

    I don’t hear anyone claiming that “X city didn’t vote for Kasich so he shouldn’t be the Governor”.

    I was just responding to your statement that Columbus voters voted for the Casino income, when technically they did not.

    #543533
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    ehill27 said:
    I was just responding to your statement that Columbus voters voted for the Casino income, when technically they did not.

    Yes they did.

    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ohio_Columbus_Casino_Relocation,_Issue_2_(May_2010)

    #543534

    ehill27
    Participant

    Now, now that is misleading and you know it (i.e. your previous argument on statewide votes). The relocation vote is wholly different than the vote to have casinos.

    ~~~

    …all seven Central Ohio counties were among 58 in the state that gave Issue 3 a thumbs-down.

    #543535

    pilsner
    Participant

    ehll27, just curious about why you’re a big supporter of the arena bailout. You’re one of the few people around here I’ve admired over the years at CU. Did you live in Columbus back in 1997 when the city titans failed in their huge p.r campaign to pass the ballot issue for a publicly-funded arena? The mayor and Chamber of Commerce types claimed there was no Plan B if voters turned it down. Five days after defeat, the front page, top of the fold blaring headline in the Dispatch described Plan B for a privately funded arena. Nevermind the tax abatements and TIFs that helped pay millions of the cost.

    My disgust is that it was never approved by the voters and how responsive City Hall and the County Commissioners are to Nationwide Insurance and four of the richest families in central Ohio—-McConnells, Wolfes, Pizzutis and Cranes—-when they struggle with their business plan. Of course, it’s bootstraps and Survivor Island for the peons.

    Plus how the Dispatch publisher and editors operated in bad faith by opposing gambling for years and then they manipulate the system so they can suck at the teat of the gambling taxes for 25 years.

    I dunno if it’s most accurate to call it lemon socialism or crony capitalism or fascism-lite but it really stinks to me.

    The people who benefit from the arena bailout are the power structure of City Hall even though they probably spend most of their time living in suburban mansions. So what am I missing, ehill?

    #543536
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    Snarf said:
    Is there a point at which you will let this anger go or is it like an infinite and undying anger?

    Infinite and undying. I mean, I’m a pretty big booster of all things Columbus (even Council and the Mayor), but this was just such a shady deal.

    #543537

    RhondaH
    Member

    Coremodels said:
    Infinite and undying.

    Muhahaha…. ;)

    #543538

    NDaEast
    Participant

    Coremodels said:
    Infinite and undying. I mean, I’m a pretty big booster of all things Columbus (even Council and the Mayor), but this was just such a shady deal.

    Our goal is simply to allow the voters to have a say, which should have happened the first time around. If this hadn’t been shady, there wouldn’t have been private meetings for two years, followed by the quick council vote with no prior public hearings on such a major issue. And then that curious wording that said all the meetings that happened prior were public meetings, as a CYA.

    I am not aware of any city lease that is longer than one year, and do not think it is possible (though there is an exception to every rule). This comes up as an issue every blue moon when the city seeks to lease in new construction. One of the banking issues with the Gateway building at 750 E. Long, for instance, was the fact that the city leases could only be one year. My understanding (secondary from talking to a good friend who was the main project investor, before it went belly up) was that it basically took Hugh Dorrian talking to the bankers to make that deal fly because the bankers were very uncomfortable with the annual lease structure.

    The basic principle is that no unit of government can commit operating dollars against future councils’ money. Governmental appropriations are always year-to-year (some, like the state, are bi-annual). It is why any multi-year federal spending must be done through a tax bill initiated by the House Ways & Means Committee, because tax bills can be multi-year. But appropriations expenditures are always year-to-year. Capital/Bond issues are different (they are not appropriated), they are voted multiyear.

    #543539

    Schoolboy
    Participant

    Personally, I feel that this will fail if voted upon.

    Simply for the reason that we are robbing Paul to pay Peter for a second time without asking Paul what he thinks. Paul being the tax payers… Peter being Nationwide.

    While I was actually for helping to bail out Nationwide in the first place via tax increases… what the city is trying to pull I am 100% now against (without being put to a vote first).

    I’m not even sure how this is legal. If we had to vote on a move of the casino, how in the world does it not have to be put to a vote on what is done with the taxes??? Maybe I missed something, and that was setup by the city… but from my understanding that was all laid out in the initial casino vote.

    It is ironic and laughable to me that the casino was forcefully moved from the Arena District, now it is being used to pay for it :)

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (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