Skip to main content

A Little Too Ambitious--"Real"ly?


Mayor Peter Corroon and the Salt Lake County Council can wipe out a fairly big mistake if they act on the study recently conducted regarding building a new soccer stadium. The study indicates that Real Salt Lake's plan is too ambitious, and there will not be enough money to pay for the project even in the best of scenarios.

I once served on a city council, where we had a large development group approach us with plans for a wonderful development of commerce, golf courses, gated communities, and everything else they could think of. But we had to act fast, because if we didn't they would go somewhere else. Against my wishes, we acted fast, and luckily our town didn't get stuck with any of the bill except our city's credit rating has now become suspect. There are a few homes now (6 years later) in the once-promised shangrila.

This is why I see Dave Checketts' and Real Salt Lake's proposal for a new stadium in Sandy as a dangerous undertaking for MOST of those involved. It ain't gonna work. And Dave Checketts WILL NOT be left holding the bag. Can you guess who will?

Here's what they want:
  1. $30 million in hotel tax revenue from the county
  2. $15 million in redevelopment money from Sandy City
  3. $29 ticket prices
  4. 12 packed concerts per year in the new stadium
  5. Dipping into rosily-projected Major League Soccer profit sharing revenues
And after all this, a study by Economics Research Associates projects that there will not be enough revenue to fund the debt. I can only assume that this takes into account the highway robbery that Real allowed DC United to get away with when it acquired Freddy Adu.




Land developers aren't the only ones famed for producing unscrupulous economic projections. Sports franchises do, too.

City and county officials will have their decision as early as Monday (Jan 22, 2007). I certainly hope they decide to be as circumspect with public monies as I'm sure they are with their own.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Scott Hinrichs1/22/2007 09:50:00 AM

    Years ago my parents taught me that when it comes to major financial decisions to back away if pressure is applied to do it right now. The sales folks are skilled at making it sound so urgent. I can still remember my mom saying, "If it's a good deal, it will still be around after you've had time to think clearly about it." Dad also counseled that if a deal is so hot that it evaporates while you're taking your time considering it, something else will likely come along. I still think that's good advice.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.
2 comments
Read more

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...
67 comments
Read more