Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Initiative to End Payments to Nationwide Arena

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Initiative to End Payments to Nationwide Arena

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 899 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #555532

    Pablo
    Participant

    Aaron Marshall said:
    I support this 100 percent and look forward to seeing this issue on the ballot where I can vote against public funding of an arena. Again.

    As do I.

    #555533
    murfmurphy
    murfmurphy
    Participant

    ravage614 said:

    Good luck tomorrow. You are not dealing with reasonable people.

    Kettle? Is that you?

    #555534

    Achekov
    Participant

    Throughout history most arenas have been publicly funded, even back to Roman times.

    I don’t like it but if it comes down to public funding or no arena, then I’ll have to go with the arena, since it does have an ROI to the area in the long-term.

    Bread and Ciruses!

    #555535

    Schoolboy
    Participant

    Achekov said:
    Throughout history most arenas have been publicly funded, even back to Roman times.

    I don’t like it but if it comes down to public funding or no arena, then I’ll have to go with the arena, since it does have an ROI to the area in the long-term.

    Bread and Ciruses!

    I agree that they are often publicly funded. Also agree that I would rather have a professional hockey team than not have one. I will vote yes to keep them here.

    However, they are still voted upon.

    This is how many cities lose their professional teams. The tax payers are unwilling to supply a new stadium/arena so the team leaves for a city that will.

    The tax payers either did not want the CBJ here if they had to pay for the arena, or did not realize the consequences. Either way, it should be up to them to decide. Even though it will go against my wishes, I do not like the fact that it was forced onto us. I throw it in with same boat as the casino. We were forced into building one through very very shady legislation. Just to reiterate, not the moving of the casino as that was voted on, being forced to build it in the first place.

    #555536

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Schoolboy said:
    I agree that they are often publicly funded. Also agree that I would rather have a professional hockey team than not have one. I will vote yes to keep them here.

    However, they are still voted upon.

    This is how many cities lose their professional teams. The tax payers are unwilling to supply a new stadium/arena so the team leaves for a city that will.

    The tax payers either did not want the CBJ here if they had to pay for the arena, or did not realize the consequences. Either way, it should be up to them to decide. Even though it will go against my wishes, I do not like the fact that it was forced onto us. I throw it in with same boat as the casino. We were forced into building one through very very shady legislation. Just to reiterate, not the moving of the casino as that was voted on, being forced to build it in the first place.

    Who knows, maybe Columbus residents can be as stupid as Cincinnati in voting against its own interests. One can hope!

    #555537

    uncleboo
    Participant

    jbcmh81 said:
    Who knows, maybe Columbus residents can be as stupid as Cincinnati in voting against its own interests. One can hope!

    ^ You beat me to the comparison in Cinci, and couldn’t agree more. They are handcuffed by the Reds and Bengals: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704461304576216330349497852

    I dig having the arena and a hockey team in town, but I’m totally cool if they left for greener pastures because the tax payers in Franklin County said no to owning the arena.

    #555538

    Graybeak
    Participant

    so even if this happens, and we vote that we don’t want to “own” the arena, who do you suppose we are going to get to buy it?

    #555539

    JimboJones34
    Member

    Can we just accept the fact that Columbus is simply not a major league sports town?

    #555540

    NDaEast
    Participant

    The citizen-initiated proposal submitted this morning is not a referendum on the Blue Jackets — Go Jackets! It is a referendum on whether an unaccountable city council can continue to sidestep the will of the people. On 5 occasions, the voters of Columbus rejected publicly-funded sports/entertainment complexes, including this arena for a proposed hockey team.

    To its credit, upon losing the election the private sector (Nationwide Insurance) stepped up and built and operated Nationwide Arena with private funding, and a commitment to not come to the public for money. Once the Blue Jackets started leaking money, they came back to the public and council and the administration figured out a way to get around the voters by signing a +/- 27 year lease, whose payments would be funded annually in the city budget, and which lease payments would support a mortgage by the Convention Facilities Board held by Nationwide (the lender).

    The city only committed to annual lease payments, and reserved the right to walk away without penalty if a future council decided not to allocate the lease payment in any future year. At that point, the facility would go back to the mortgage holder: Nationwide Insurance. According to Auditor Dorrian, this deal has no impact on the city’s credit rating (it is a financing deal that is unbankable because it is a non recourse lease, so Nationwide assumed it in its portfolio.)

    This ordinance simply says that unless the voters have approve continuation funding sometime over the next two years, the city’s lease payments will end on January 1, 2016. The proposed ordinance does not take a position for or against public funding of the arena, it takes the position that it is the right of the people to decide whether owning an arena is in the public interest, and it seeks to make the forces that want public funding to lay their case for continued funding before the voters for a decision.

    The issue many of us have is that in 2011 when the City approved the 27.5 year lease agreement totaling a projected $236,000,000 (subject to annual appropriation), we were coming on the heels of a 2009 voted tax increase to fund basic city services. Further, many object to the fact that the City, with its $800,000,000 budget, is bailing out a corporation with roughly $20 Billion in annual revenues and over $1 Billion in annual profits. We wonder why the private sector, which should accept business risk, is able to secure all the profit while offloading the business losses onto the public sector. The City will argue that this is about economic development and jobs. This is the type of public debate that we did not have in 2011,but that is critical to a functioning democracy where the people are able to stand up and make their voices heard.

    #555541

    Schoolboy
    Participant

    jbcmh81 said:
    Who knows, maybe Columbus residents can be as stupid as Cincinnati in voting against its own interests. One can hope!

    I don’t understand how voting for or against something like this could be considered “stupid”. It is all a matter of preference on where the tax dollars go.

    #555542

    InnerCore
    Participant

    JimboJones34 said:
    Can we just accept the fact that Columbus is simply not a major league sports town?

    What a slogan.

    #555543

    Schoolboy
    Participant

    JimboJones34 said:
    Can we just accept the fact that Columbus is simply not a major league sports town?

    No. Won’t get into it… but no.

    Not sure who ever thought hockey and Columbus was going to mesh well in the first place.

    #555544

    NDaEast
    Participant

    Graybeak said:
    so even if this happens, and we vote that we don’t want to “own” the arena, who do you suppose we are going to get to buy it?

    Nationwide is the original developer and owner, and is now the lender who financed the public purchase. Under the terms of the lease agreements and mortgages, if lease payments are not made (which is an explicit right of the city in the lease agreement), the lease goes into default and the city loses its rights to lease. Ultimately the property returns to Nationwide as the mortgage holder with no harm to the city’s credit rating.

    #555545

    NDaEast
    Participant

    Again, and to be clear, this is not a referendum about the Blue Jackets — ultimately the ticket-buying public will determine their fate. During the 2009-2011 negotiations, the NHL made clear that it is committed to the Columbus market and not interested in the franchise relocating from Columbus. Most likely, if the team continues to lose money the owners would sell it to another ownership group at a loss, but the team itself would stay in Columbus.

    Personally, I like hockey, go to the occasional Blue Jackets game, and don’t object in principle to publicly-financed stadiums: I grew up in Cleveland going to Cleveland’s Municipal Stadium to watch the Browns and the Indians lose all during my childhood.

    But clearly, across the country these are taxpayer decisions — not politicians’ decisions. This is about a government that is responsive to, and controlled by, the interests of the citizens — not the interests of the wealthy and powerful. All over the country we as citizens need to fight for that — and many of these battles are local, as in this case.

    #555546

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    uncleboo said:
    ^ You beat me to the comparison in Cinci, and couldn’t agree more. They are handcuffed by the Reds and Bengals: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704461304576216330349497852

    I dig having the arena and a hockey team in town, but I’m totally cool if they left for greener pastures because the tax payers in Franklin County said no to owning the arena.

    I was being sarcastic. I believe the BJ’s are a net asset for the city, and whether or not some are willing to admit as much, it’s a referendum on keeping them here or not. I brought up Cincinnati in regards to voting against the streetcar, which also would’ve been a net asset. I do NOT want Columbus to follow the same path and believe the single-minded focus on taxes is a terrible way to view city assets and development.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 899 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

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

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE