Anti-Arena Campaign

User avatar
QueSi2Opie
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3864
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: Hangin' with the cons, crazies, and crackheads on 11th & Grand.

Anti-Arena Campaign

Postby QueSi2Opie » Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:06 pm

bahua wrote:Cities aren't supposed to finance arenas. Teams and sponsors are.


I see the KC Comets steppin' up to the plate and buildin' a new arena. :lol:

Anyhow, if it's part of a downtown revitalization effort that brings in an entertainment district and H&R Block, I'd be disappointed if people go against it. Meanwhile, we'll be drivin' out to Olathe to see the KC Comets & Explorers.
The Pendergast Poltergeist Project!

I finally divorced beer and proposed to whiskey, but I occassionally cheat with fine wine.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10617
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Anti-Arena Campaign

Postby mean » Thu Oct 16, 2003 10:03 pm

They aren't necessarily good. But if we're going to build it we're going to build it, and it will sink or swim. I'd much rather see the city get its budget in shape first, but that is probably a hopeless dream.

That was a pretty good article, Que, although you didn't highlight some of the parts I would have.

I think we've finally discussed the pros and cons of this to death. I want to see an actual proposal.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin

User avatar
bahua
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:39 pm
Location: Out of Town
Contact:

Anti-Arena Campaign

Postby bahua » Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:49 am

What are the KC Comets and Explorers?

User avatar
QueSi2Opie
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3864
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: Hangin' with the cons, crazies, and crackheads on 11th & Grand.

Anti-Arena Campaign

Postby QueSi2Opie » Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:06 am

mean wrote:That was a pretty good article, Que, although you didn't highlight some of the parts I would have.


As long as we understand that I highlighted the "pros" because I'm for it. :wink: Basically, the article and studies believe an arena/stadium by itself isn't a good investment, unless it's part of a larger revitalization project that includes retail, entertainment, housing, hotels and offices.

bahua wrote:What are the KC Comets and Explorers?


The KC Comets are the indoor professional soccer team that plays in Kemper Arena. The KC Explorers are part of the professional team tennis league. Anyone know if Anna Kournikova still plays for KC?
The Pendergast Poltergeist Project!

I finally divorced beer and proposed to whiskey, but I occassionally cheat with fine wine.

baystateroad
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 9:36 pm

Anti-Arena Campaign

Postby baystateroad » Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:20 pm

This is like talking to a schizophrenic child. You have to know how full of it you are. Nobody can possibly be this retarded.

This has nothing to do with the discussion.


Neither does this:

YOU NUMBSKULL

I am obviously not retarded, and I feel like I'm clearly a lot better at critical analysis of situations than you are.

How--by doing nothing but calling for "academic research" while offering none yourself. No, you're not.

Other retard-isms:

What is not effective is acting like a baby, "Waa waa, I want an arena, and you don't want one, so you are retarded

Do I want an arena. . .?:

I'm just commenting generally--seeing as how there are currently no tenants I've never been able to figure out quite why kc needs such a project.

Nope--you can't even get straight the position or motives of the person you're debating. But you're easily "confused" so it should be no real suprise.

Ignoring that, I still don't see where it (globe article) says anything about increasing the population density or attracting residents, which is what I was talking about.

"What you were talking about" was addressed by the fenway development links I posted--you ignored it--remember? The article was posted in response to the economic impact issues which were raised:

They do produce revenue, but a good question is how much revenue? A couple extra sales tax dollars is all we're really looking at.

Or did you forget that you said that? Confused again? The links and mention of other projects in and around boston arenas were posted to rebut the first adaptation of your silly extreme position:

I have seen zero evidence that arenas draw residents (or do anything but turn people off) -- which is, of course, why I asked to see some.

And you got some--the fenway stuff--which you ignored because it proves that you hold an untenable position--which you've now revised and softened. Moreover, neither constitues a project from "1912", both are since 2000. More "confusion" (I call it, Being Retarded).

I've also shown that there is indeed a positive economic effect, showing real life numbers and occurances that ultimately rebut any silly idea otherwise. Nowhere have I advocated for a $200 milllion subsidy--or even an arena at all.

Got it?

the article you posted makes a lot of speculative, forward looking statements on things that may or may not (and often don't) meet expectations. What you provide isn't academic research, friend, it looks like someone at the Globe got a press release from Boston's CVB, who are notorious for flubbing statistics.

I've never heard anything regarding the propensity of a CVB to "flub" stats--another empty retort--"they're wrong cuz they're wrong". And what possible motive would these people have to lie? The paper is simply reporting here--it's not an editorial--nobody involved in this article is trying to "prove" anything. The paper is simply getting these numbers and expectations from the businesses themselves--why would a small restaurant or any business owner want to lie about how well they're doing? What possible interest does it serve? You (as always) failed to bother with any solid reasons why--just another empty unsubstantiated accusation which in your small mind qualifies as analysis. If anything, I would think they wouldn't want to give this impression of themselves at this time--then they wouldn't have to answer to those who question why they haven't been hiring in this economy (see how it's done--this "analysis" thing??).

Here's the post-game info for you: http://business.bostonherald.com/busine ... icleid=534


The reality of the situation is that new arena development and existing arenas HAVE supported, HAVE prompted, HAVE directly caused the very kind of effects you're claiming they can't, won't, may not, cannot or whatever adaptation of your position you're currently using. So you can "academic research" yourself into a stupor--unless you have unchallengeable "acedemic research" that irrefutably proves the nonexistence of the us cities of boston, minneapolis (target center) columbus, cleveland, baltimore & denver then any call for "academic research" amounts to a worthless, empty retort--especially when you've posted absolutely nothing which amounts to what you're calling for.

But to satisfy all of your current "positions", in all of the above mentioned cities, the arenas (in annotated form):

a. DID help to attract new residents

b. DID spur and attract development and residents and

c. DID "suck in tons" of residents, WAS a catalyst for people moving to the area and WAS NOT a catalyst for people moving from the area.

Okey dokey?

You obviously don't understand the purpose of such social research anyway--it's simply meant to serve as a rough guide as to how or how not to go about doing something. It's not like physics or chemistry--there are no laws of nature as in those disciplines. Any social scientist would be the first to admit this. That you can't understand this, that you totally base your position on something which not only can be contradicted by simply offering up another study (by another group, with a contrary agenda), but which also contradics reality itself speaks to your lack of credibility and intelligence. And your inability to actually foment any thoughtful analysis.

If you're so into the research angle why didn't you bother to even try to rebut my response to this goofy thing you posted:

from 1980 to 1995, the population levels in downtown areas in cities with downtown sports facilities declined more than in the other communities."

You already indicated your propensity to believe it--even to just take it at face value w/o "researching" it yourself (what nonsense). So back it up. Make no mention of outside sources, "research" or "studies" because I didn't. Prove you can offer something other than empty retorts such as

"And regarding the copy/paste job, whoever wrote that needs a sharp stick in the eye and a brief lesson in Econ 101. If I were feeling ambitious I'd take it point-by-point, but I'm pretty sure there's not much, er, point to doing so"

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10617
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Anti-Arena Campaign

Postby mean » Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:21 pm

Can we get to the meat of the matter? You seem much more interested in attempting to "discredit" me than anything else. I advocate approaching this in a different matter for the sake of brevity. I will be employing heavy use of bold and italics for your viewing pleasure.

Your position: Arenas necessarily bring in outside development
My position: Arenas do not necessarily bring in outside development

Is this accurate? Is this what you're getting all upset about?

My "position" is and always has been: Arenas do not necessarily bring in outside development. I maintain this position, and I reject references to development projects in other cities, which were not funded entirely by the public, and were not solely arena projects, as these are my two primary objections to this arena project, for which we've not even seen plans. So maybe there WILL be a good percentage of outside funding, and a swath of "good" development included, and I would be inclined to say, "Oh joy! A new Arena!" instead of, "Oh no, a new huge bill to pay!" If you want to search through things I've typed in other posts which you feel are at odds with this position, please do. I will edit them for consistency if this will make you shut up.

I have also stated that arenas may drive residents and business away, which is based on research by economics professors Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist (Sports, Jobs, & Taxes). Do they have a secret anti-arena agenda? Who knows? I'm just stating the possibility based on their research.

If I get a little to 'in' to playing Devil's Advocate and make it appear as though I am 'anti-arena', well, oops. I'm not. I am anti arena if it's a lone project, and I am anti arena if it is all public money. But above and beyond that I am anti bad investment, and what KC needs now is residents. Even if KB's plan would bring in the residents we need, and I will happily acknowledge that an arena plus accompanying developments as part of a bigger project could, I can not be persuaded that an arena in KC (plus accompanying developments) is the most cost-effective way to bring in those residents.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin

User avatar
bahua
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:39 pm
Location: Out of Town
Contact:

Anti-Arena Campaign

Postby bahua » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:18 pm

What I love about this time of year is that the beer gets better.


Return to “Downtown Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest