Jump to content

I made the paper today


OMMF

Recommended Posts

From the 3/17 edition of the Seattle P-I:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/216263_ltrs17.html

I take issue with Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis' claim that without the Sonics, it would leave us "with an empty building" (KeyArena) ("Clock is ticking on bill to pay KeyArena debt," Monday).

As I'm sure the deputy mayor already knows, the Key is host to many events apart from the 40-plus home games the Sonics have each year. While the Sonics leaving would also lead to the Storm WNBA team folding, KeyArena would still be home to Seattle Thunderbirds hockey, numerous concerts and performing-arts shows and other events.

With those 40-plus nights open, Arena Football and indoor lacrosse could be new possibilities. Maybe a CBA team could take its place. Or even make it an NHL-ready facility, which it should have been in the first place.

Why not let the Sonics leave and spend money to renovate the arena to become a place where the average person can take their family to see a sporting event?

I'm tired of local politicians using a team leaving as leverage to induce investment into an arena. Seattle would be just fine without the Sonics, thank you very much. We already shelled out $1B dollars on two stadia we voted against and now the Sonics think they need $100M from the taxpayers or else they're leaving. Citizens need to finally stand up against these private businesses using public money. It's getting insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey man, nothing against you but sports teams always equal economic impact. Before the Pacers and Colts, downtown Indy sucked ass, you didn't want to be caught down there. Now, we have an awesome basketball arena, one hell of a mall, the zoo, state museum, eiteljorg museum, Victory Field, the Convention Center, condos being built, a new 26 story hotel, and not a lot of vacant space downtown. Same thing is starting to happen in Cincinnati too as people are starting to get over their fear of the riots of 2001.

When the new Colts stadium is built, that gives way for a much larger convention center, which means more hotels, restraunts, more condos, more events, basically more money. There are only a few rare cases where teams have not had a positive economic impact. And before anyone goes on the "Oh Josh is stupid, he doesn't know what he's talking about route", I researched this for a paper freshman year of college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey man, nothing against you but sports teams always equal economic impact. Before the Pacers and Colts, downtown Indy sucked ass, you didn't want to be caught down there. Now, we have an awesome basketball arena, one hell of a mall, the zoo, state museum, eiteljorg museum, Victory Field, the Convention Center, condos being built, a new 26 story hotel, and not a lot of vacant space downtown. Same thing is starting to happen in Cincinnati too as people are starting to get over their fear of the riots of 2001.

When the new Colts stadium is built, that gives way for a much larger convention center, which means more hotels, restraunts, more condos, more events, basically more money. There are only a few rare cases where teams have not had a positive economic impact. And before anyone goes on the "Oh Josh is stupid, he doesn't know what he's talking about route", I researched this for a paper freshman year of college.

I'm not saying sports teams don't influence a local economy. But considering Key Arena (the renovations, not the actual building itself) are only 13 years old and the Kingdome was only 20, it seems that franchises are the kids that always want the newest, best toy. It doesn't or shouldn't work like that. And why should the city be on the hook for a poorly run business? Giving them money only enables them to keep making bad business decisions as opposed to forcing them to reevaluate their policies.

The world would not end if sports franchises ceased to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey man, nothing against you but sports teams always equal economic impact. There are only a few rare cases where teams have not had a positive economic impact.

Actually Josh, you're wrong... or, at the very least, guilty of a gross oversimplification.

Many economists will tell you that any money spent by consumers on professional sports within a municipality would simply be spent on other entertainment pursuits if the sports didn't exist. Additionally, money spent by consumers on pro sports can't be spent in other pursuits. Therefore, the notion of pro sports having a "positive economic impact" is somewhat misleading. Money will make its way back into the community regardless of whether or not professional sports ventures exist. Economically, pro sports investment is, at best, a "wash".

What's more, given that the capital outlay for stadiums and arenas is terribly expensive, as well as the fact that the price of attending a major professional sporting event is generally one of the most expensive in all of entertainment, pro sports can actually be a drain on local economies. If local government has to pick up a significant chunk of the construction costs on a stadium or arena, that's money that is unavailable for other projects on the state, county or municipal level. If consumers spend a considerable fee to attend a pro sports event, they have less available money to spend in other areas of the local economy.

As for Indianapolis' specific story, the Pacers and Colts were not the egines driving the revitalization of the city's downtown. A quick review of the various attractions you listed proves this.

* The Indianapolis Zoo & Gardens has been located in downtown's White River State Park since its launch in 1964... three years before the Pacers were founded, twenty years before the Colts called Indianapolis home and thirty years before ground was broken for the Conseco Field House.

* The collection of artifacts that went on to become the Indiana State Museum has been around since 1862. The museum's board officially voted to move to a site in White River State Park in 1984... and had been contemplating a move to a dedicated downtown museum site since at least 1945. Ninteen-Eighty-Four was the same year the Colts moved to Indianapolis (though I sincerely doubt the museum's decision was made in order to fulfill a desire to be closer to the RCA Dome) and ten years before ground was broken for the Conseco Field House. The museum officially moved into its new home in 1999, the same year as the Pacers first game at the Field House.

* The Eiteljorg Museum opened in 1989, ten years before the Conseco Field House opened.

* As for linking the construction of a new stadium for the Colts with convention center expansion, you are getting ahead of yourself. That's the proposed plan that the Indiana Convention and Visitors Bureau would like to see adopted. However, in the Indiana General Assembly a House bill aimed at raising money for the expansion failed to get a hearing. In a subsequent House bill, the funding mechanisms that the earlier bill had proposed were appropriated for the Colts' planned $500-million stadium. In essence, as things stand now, the proposed expenditure on the Colts' stadium wouldn't lead to the "positive economic impact" of new convention center expansion. Rather, state financing of the Colts' new stadium would effectively usurp the funds necessary to expand the convention center.

If anything, the argument can be made that Indianapolis' pro sports franchises wanted to move downtown in order to cash in on a renaissance launched by the city's non-profit cultural and educational entities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* The Indianapolis Zoo & Gardens has been located in downtown's White River State Park since its launch in 1964... three years before the Pacers were founded, twenty years before the Colts called Indianapolis home and thirty years before ground was broken for the Conseco Field House.

Yeah maybe I am guilty of oversimplification but you do have one fact wrong here.

The Indianapolis Zoo opened in 1964 in Washington Park. It moved to its current home in 1988. Trust me, I work there (although very occasionally).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe its him. It's signed "M. Jarred Shelton," not OMMF. :rolleyes:

I hate when they screw my name up like that. There is no period after the M. Well there there is because it's the end of a sentence. But my given name is M Jarred Shelton. Just the letter "M" no period. For some reason, people can't wrap their heads around that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe its him.  It's signed "M. Jarred Shelton," not OMMF.  :rolleyes:

I hate when they screw my name up like that. There is no period after the M. Well there there is because it's the end of a sentence. But my given name is M Jarred Shelton. Just the letter "M" no period. For some reason, people can't wrap their heads around that.

Well, what's with the M without the period then? :therock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe its him.  It's signed "M. Jarred Shelton," not OMMF.  :rolleyes:

I hate when they screw my name up like that. There is no period after the M. Well there there is because it's the end of a sentence. But my given name is M Jarred Shelton. Just the letter "M" no period. For some reason, people can't wrap their heads around that.

Well, what's with the M without the period then? :therock:

My first name. Just the letter. M Jarred Shelton. Doesn't stand for anything therefore no period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe its him.  It's signed "M. Jarred Shelton," not OMMF.   :rolleyes:

I hate when they screw my name up like that. There is no period after the M. Well there there is because it's the end of a sentence. But my given name is M Jarred Shelton. Just the letter "M" no period. For some reason, people can't wrap their heads around that.

Well, what's with the M without the period then? :therock:

My first name. Just the letter. M Jarred Shelton. Doesn't stand for anything therefore no period.

Well I can't really blame the editor for putting the period after the M. (the period is for the end of the sentence :D) I would have done that if I were the editor. Let's face it, how many people do we know have a first name consisting of one letter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe its him.  It's signed "M. Jarred Shelton," not OMMF.  :rolleyes:

I hate when they screw my name up like that. There is no period after the M. Well there there is because it's the end of a sentence. But my given name is M Jarred Shelton. Just the letter "M" no period. For some reason, people can't wrap their heads around that.

Well, what's with the M without the period then? :therock:

My first name. Just the letter. M Jarred Shelton. Doesn't stand for anything therefore no period.

Well I can't really blame the editor for putting the period after the M. (the period is for the end of the sentence :D) I would have done that if I were the editor. Let's face it, how many people do we know have a first name consisting of one letter?

One more than you did 48 hours ago. :D

I understand that but in an email, when signing my name, if there was a period there, don't you think I'd put one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.