Our City Online

Messageboard - Sports

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

The Sale/Purchase of Nationwide Arena

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Sports The Sale/Purchase of Nationwide Arena

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 589 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #340007

    misskitty
    Participant

    Walker said:
    It does?

    New Vision Announced for West Side Redevelopment

    You know I have heard so many versions of a “Weston” redevelopment for the mall for years now. Just because they toss some stuff around on paper does not mean it will see completion. I am sure we could think of a number of projects that had an idea and sometimes even investors only to fold later. I will believe it when it’s done.
    I am not saying your wrong don’t take it that way. I just don’t put much thought into an idea that has been floating for years even before the casino was on the minds of the public.

    #340008

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Coremodels said:
    Really? You think anyone expected that 1/3 to 1/4 of the county and city casino revenue would go to buy an arena that voters didn’t want to buy 10 years ago?

    Come on. You should be ashamed with that argument.

    I’m confused. The casino revenue is all new, correct? Even if we spent 99% of it on this deal, we’d still have more money for the city than we had previously. Apparently many of you believe that Columbus should simply give up its assets and have the Arena District have an entire abandoned stadium sucking the life out of one of the most vibrant areas of the city. So many people in this city are so damned short-sighted.

    #340009
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Coremodels said:
    So if I understand, vote no on issue 3 because it would fuck up this thriving, mixed use neighborhood…but make sure we build the casino somewhere else, so it can PAY for this thriving, mixed-use neighborhood because it can’t pay for itself.

    While I’d love to have the ability to see into the future, my personal vote on the casino issue was not with the foresight of knowing where tax revenue would be allocated.

    Again, the casino factor is a non-issue for me. The money is public money, plain and simple, no matter where the earmark is made.

    #340010
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    So many people in this city are so damned short-sighted.

    Those goddam voters.

    #340011
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    Walker said:
    While I’d love to have the ability to see into the future, my personal vote on the casino issue was not with the foresight of knowing where tax revenue would be allocated.

    Again, the casino factor is a non-issue for me. The money is public money, plain and simple, no matter where the earmark is made.

    See above.

    The time is now.

    Say it or you lose this argument entirely.

    #340012

    ehill27
    Participant

    With all this talk about the devalued arena, I just wanted to point out that it was Nationwide who went to court to devalue the property…

    The $42 million purchase price for the arena is slightly lower than the $44 million value Nationwide placed on it during court proceedings to set the taxable value of the building in 2006, a case in which it was in the company’s interest to set the price as low as possible. The county auditor had valued the arena at $129.7 million. It cost $147.1 million to build in 1999, Nationwide said at the time.

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/09/14/Proposal-to-keep-Blue-Jackets-in-town-to-be-released-today.html

    #340013

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Coremodels said:
    Those goddam voters.

    Voters can absolutely be short-sighted.

    #340014

    misskitty
    Participant

    Wickham said:
    Just a side note, Kansas City has a new arena (publicly funded like nearly every sports arena in America) that would take the team. Not to mention Quebec City, and Hamilton Ontario. Just saying that that threat shouldn’t have been taken lightly.

    Seriously ? You don’t think they would be conflicted about taking a team that barely wins at least half of their games? That would be as bad as signing a one sided lease.

    #340015
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    jbcmh81 said:
    Voters can absolutely be short-sighted.

    yeah, fuck those guys.

    #340016

    ehill27
    Participant

    misskitty said:
    Seriously ? You don’t think they would be conflicted about taking a team that barely wins at least half of their games?

    No, absolutely not.

    #340017

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    misskitty said:
    Seriously ? You don’t think they would be conflicted about taking a team that barely wins at least half of their games? That would be as bad as signing a one sided lease.

    Remember the Cleveland Browns moving to Baltimore? What was that thing they won after moving? Oh yeah, a Superbowl.

    #340018

    Wickham
    Member

    By the way, for those complaining the “West Side” is getting shafted due to allocating the money to downtown, keep in mind that downtown gets shafted every year. Only 10% of the tax generated in the area gets reinvested into the direct area Slide 7.

    In other words, it really doesn’t matter where the money comes from to invest in the city, so as long as it’s to help the city overall.

    #340019
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    jbcmh81 said:
    Remember the Cleveland Browns moving to Baltimore? What was that thing they won after moving? Oh yeah, a Superbowl.

    Yes, you’re right.

    Oh wait, do you want to be right?

    #340020

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Coremodels said:
    yeah, fuck those guys.

    Didn’t say that. I said that voters can be just as uninformed as anyone else. You have to take a step back and look at the whole picture and not just what you think is in your personal and immediate best interest.

    #340021

    Wickham
    Member

    misskitty said:
    Seriously ? You don’t think they would be conflicted about taking a team that barely wins at least half of their games? That would be as bad as signing a one sided lease.

    Do you follow sports? They would be able to rebuild/retool the team however they see fit. It’s not as if any hockey team named the Jackets is going to automatically be awful.

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 589 total)

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

Subscribe below: