Official photo of the SF Event Center Task Force
Okay, the EC task force met again to finalize their doomed plans that they hope to present to the public November 16 at a SF city council informational meeting. They plan to meet one more time before explaining their funding plans to regional legislators at a October 29, public meeting at the Orpheum (10 AM).
I’m not going to go into a bunch of crap like I did after the last meeting I attended, but I will point out some finer points, because it seems this beast is still a work in progress. I’ll have to give props to Jim Woster today though, he is good getting the members to cooperate and move on and did a fine job of it today.
The meeting started with the Howard Wood plans if they move and build a new stadium; $32 million. But the architects said this was a ‘Conceptual Estimate’ not a ‘Cost Estimate’. Which means it came directly from their assholes. One task force member asked why the plans were not drawn up to include the track inside the stadium instead of outside of it, and they replied, “Because no one asked us to.” Does someone have to instruct you to wipe your ass after taking a shit to?
The TF is still pushing for the Arena site and consultant Bob Winkels pointed out that in almost every survey taken, the public did not support the downtown location – but it gets better;
Councilor Costello basically says that it doesn’t matter what the public thinks, the TF was formed to make a recommendation (not listen to what the public wants – paraphrasing).
That was very revealing, not only about the TF but what kind of mayor Pat would make. Scary shit. Pat sat in the middle of the room and tried to basically run the meeting, and was pretty successful at rounding up the sheeple, or at least shutting them up.
They will be presenting two concepts to the council
• Building a 15,000 seat shell EC with 12,000 seats or
• Building a 15,000 seat shell EC with 15,000 seats.
Either way, too freaking big.
They still want to build it with a retail tax increase, in fact Costello said it was “The only way to go.” Yet the TF could not decide how much that increase would be, and there was a pissing match about food taxes and rebates. I think I said loudly under my breath, “Their is a solution, DON’T TAX FOOD!”
But towards the end of the meeting there was an intriguing convo about parking and moving HW. The TF (unknowingly) came to the conclusion that it would be cheaper to build a parking ramp then moving and building a new HW. A savings of like $10 million. And if you factor in flat surface parking north of Russell avenue you could save probably $15 million. But the savings don’t end there. Russell, West and Western are getting reconstructed in 3 years and it could free up even more space for parking, possibly saving us even more. In other words, moving HW is a stupid idea. Even Winkels chimed in and said it costs quite a bit to demolish HW and that has to be factored in. The TF decided to leave the moving of HW ‘open’. I got the feeling that there is some internal conflicts on building a new HW. I have felt all along that some members only want to move it so they get a new stadium, it has nothing to do with parking. My guess is after the actual cost estimates come in, HW will stay.
Bob the Barber also brought up the fact that Sanford hasn’t committed the land to the SF school district yet. Well I guess that is a pretty big f’ing component, huh?
It seems to me that the TF’s recommendations really are not much of anything. They have a funding source that may may fail the legislature, and certainly will fail with voters. They picked the wrong location. They can’t agree on parking, they have no tenants and they want to build too big of a facility.
Grab me a hammer so I can finish sealing this coffin.
ON a side note, I showed up late to the meeting and got sandwiched between councilor Kenny Anderson Jr. and mayoral candidate Mike Huether. It made for interesting whisper conversations.
I go back to the first Study Group, as I believe they were called. At the time, they had 5 potential sites: I-29/90 intersection, I-29 & 85th street in Sanford’s research park, The Arena/HWF, The Fairgrounds and next to Cherapa downtown.
Eventually they whittled that down to the Arena and Cherapa and the group was evenly split. I believe at that point, they called in a consultant who presented the pros & cons of each site and also presented a payback analysis.
By the time he finished, the group voted and the downtown site was unanimously adopted. The logic penetrated and eyes were opened.
The problem was they lumped in the Rec. Center/Indoor pool and wanted to it all in one fell swoop. We all know how that went down, now don’t we?
Now here we are 5 years later and those projects look cheap by comparision, and indeed they are. We could be holding a ribbon cutting as we speak and that extra $100-120 million would’ve been a huge boost to our current Economic situation. The world wouldn’t have stopped spinning and all the predicted doom and gloom wouldn’t have happened. For fux sake, this group makes the last one look like a bunch of pikers with the numbers they are tossing out now.
What the first group realized, and what any objective, logical citizen would conclude upon a similar comparision, is the location IS the critical component to the payback.
By the time you add up the collateral development dollars (not just contruction, but Sales taxes), the increased capacities of two, non-overlapping facilites, and the amount of money we don’t lose by having one torn up for a year and a half while we add on to it, the decision becomes a no-fucking-brainer.
It’s just sad that the current TF TF thinks the majority of the citizens of Sioux Falls are too damn dumb to come up with the same conclusion at the Study Group.
It really doesn’t matter what they decide. The voters will turn down the funding source. People are very ‘anti-tax’ right now, Repubs, Indies and Dems. They are making no friends by taxing food to fund this place. Something I forgot to add to the post was when the discussion about food tax came up, Costello said, “It’s not our decision, it is the state’s decision.” while this is very much true, it also showed his callous towards people who have trouble feeding their families. Let’s pretend that poor people did not exist, I guess I wouldn’t care about a food tax, but that is not the case. It is morally f’ing disgusting we want to build an entertainment facility be taxing the poor on food, and if the TF members don’t get it, they need to pull their heads out of their asses.
Sy: We could be holding a ribbon cutting as we speak and that extra $100-120 million would’ve been a huge boost to our current Economic situation.
That is a rather huge assumption based upon local contractors getting all of the bids and employing local workers.
If the primary contracts went to companies from Omaha or St. Paul, or if the steel structure or windows were bought from out of town suppliers – what would the real impact to the local economy be?
The real benefit to our economy doesn’t happen until after construction ends, and if we held that ribbon cutting ceremony today we would be losing our asses considering the market for concerts and other large scale entertainment has all but been eradicated. Hell even Vegas is having a hard time selling tickets to some of their shows, and Sioux City has shown us over the past year that the motto “if you build it they will come” doesn’t apply to Events Centers.
It might sell a few more hockey tickets, but that is hardly enough to pay for the upkeep on the place. No… now is NOT the time we need an Events Center. Our brave and wise city leaders haven’t shown enough restraint with the Cavalier to justify handing them the keys to the Bentley just yet. We might be ready for the EC in another five years, but thankfully we aren’t dealing with it now.
If the primary contracts went to companies from Omaha or St. Paul, or if the steel structure or windows were bought from out of town suppliers – what would the real impact to the local economy be?
It would be the part that both you and the TF seem to have completely missed: the collateral development is where the money will be made for the city. New restaurants, bars, clubs, shops, and more evening foot traffic downtown to support them.
Costner,
“That is a rather huge assumption based upon local contractors getting all of the bids and employing local workers.”
For you, perhaps. But in hindsight, a vast majority of work, down to the subcontractor level, has gone local..and for most of the one of an EC’s size. It’s only been in the last 18 months(when nearby metros have slowed)that there’s been an influx of out of town contractors.
Back then they were talking a $80-85 mil EC with the $30 mil rec center, so a 12K seat EC even if it went to $100 mil would’ve been easily pitched, voted on with B&B tax funding, built and opened by now.
and if you can’t picture what Dude’s talking about, follow this link on Lincoln’s proposed downtown Arena:
http://vimeo.com/6986795
That fly-by from Haymarket shows what renovated old buildings alongside new stuff that is about half there now.
and imagine that, the Haymarket has an actual tenant. But what I can’t figure out is why are only Anime people going to the rock concerts?
Sure UNL is there, but a smaller version of that at Cherapa could be built with the Stampede & Skyforce as tenants. It could go after the concerts that SC & Fargo are currently bidding on. Let the CC/Arena keep the Storm/Canaries & go after all the Ducks Unlimited, Ag & trade shows, etc. Let Track, ribfest & the occasional Football rivalry be played at HWF.
Over the next 40-50 years those and other new uses will be able to flourish at each place and our kids/grandkids will be spared this same idiotic & costly debate the next time we outgrow any of them.
What I have also wondered about this is what is the height restriction for a new center and hotels at the current site since planes only land a couple hundred yards away? Think about it. What if they want to build a nice 250 Room Hotel. They sure as hell can’t fit it on there along with an Events Center, Parking Garage, Convention Center, Baseball Stadium, and the Sheraton along with leaving room for surface parking? You have to build up if your going to build something like that, and you can sure as hell bet the Government will not allow us to build a 12 Story Fancy Dancy hotel at that site. Building something that size would also look way out of place, and would take up even more room for surface parking.
Now, easily, you could build a 10-14 Story Hotel Downtown, have adequate parking around it that is already there or will be built into it, whether that is underground or right next to it. And it would fit in, and add to our skyline.
Now, tell me this, let’s say you were a hotel franchise owner, and our Task Force came up to you, and said “we are building a 12,000 Seat Facility for Entertainment, and are looking for a hotel to accompany it.”
Your initial thought would be, “12,000 seats for entertainment, and there will be consumers who will need a place to say. Sounds interesting!”… Now what the hotel developer would also ask, is “what other retail, business, and attractions are around the proposed site?”..
What would our answer be? A Buffalo Wild Wings, a bar, some houses, and an apartment building? What do you think that hotel developer would think now?
Now if we came at the hotel developer and said, “we are building a 12,000 seat Entertainment Facility, that is surrounded by offices, retail, historic buildings, and land that will be developed into condos, retail, and offices, which would require a hotel to accomodate all of this.”
Now, for the funding and crap, I have a whole different viewpoint, but I just had this ^^^ on my mind to point out, so I thought I would share my two cents.
God: It would be the part that both you and the TF seem to have completely missed: the collateral development is where the money will be made for the city.
You apparently failed to read the part where I said: “The real benefit to our economy doesn’t happen until after construction ends”.
I was merely replying to Sy’s comment about how “that extra $100-120 million would’ve been a huge boost to our current Economic situation” as he is clearly talking about construction costs. I don’t buy it – especially since the net benefit to the city doesn’t exist until years – even decades after the EC would be built.
I recall reading the figures put together by the task force in one of those studies, and the tax revenue generated by the EC was barely enough to cover the cost of operation – and they tend to make some hugely optimistic assumptions. I’m still not sold on the concept that we need it in the next 5 or 10 years, but I’m 100% convinced we sure as hell don’t need it now.
The thing is – I don’t think I’m alone in this view, which is why I think if this is put to a public vote it will go down harder than the indoor pool or Rec Center.
CC-
Funny you bring up the hotel thing, there was a huge debate about it yesterday. I got the feeling by the reaction from the non-task force members that were leaders (councilors, legislators) that the funding source is dead.
Costner;
“I don’t buy it – especially since the net benefit to the city doesn’t exist until years – even decades after the EC would be built.”
You don’t have to buy it, because I’m not selling it. It’s a goddamn historic fact. Show me a non-negotiated project, in the last 5 years, over $75 million, that didn’t go to a local GC and had a vast majority of local subs on it?
And you are making my point on the location. The EC will have many years of break-even or losses on the day to day operations. Our Arena did as well. What CC is pointing out is where the added benefits & tax revenues come in and the secondary impact is what makes it go.
Although it’s a different type & scope of
project, look at the Pavillion. How many places have remodeled and/or opened up within a 3 block radius since it was built? If we had razed it and made it a
parking lot do you think the neighborhood would look anything like it does today?
L3wis, a question I’ve been meaning to ask you. Or anyone else who knows FTM.
Can the City implement or raise a B&B tax without the prior approval of the legislature?
Thanks in advance.
Sy: a goddamn historic fact. Show me a non-negotiated project, in the last 5 years, over $75 million, that didn’t go to a local GC and had a vast majority of local subs on it?
I’m not bidding or interested in who is bidding on city projects, but I don’t recall a city project in the last five years that was anywhere near the scale they are talking about for the EC.
Not to mention the fact you are still ignoring the larger issue at work here. Sucking $120M of taxpayer money down the drain and handing it out to a few contractors (even if they might be local boys) is not going to stimulate the local economy. If stimulating the local economy is your goal, it probably isnt’ a good idea to raise taxes just so you can start a pet project.
All the figures tell us the return on our investment doesn’t come until later. The only people who would benefit from teh construction are the contractors, suppliers, and their direct employees. The trickle down BS would not be a lightning rod to the local economy especially when it comes on the backs of the citizens via a sales tax increase.
Sy-
I asked a councilor about that, his answer was no. But it is complicated. You can have incremental increases, but for a full BBB tax you have to get the legislature’s approval because it would require an increase in the entertainment tax.
Costner:
“I’m not bidding or interested in who is bidding on city projects, but I don’t recall a city project in the last five years that was anywhere near the scale they are talking about for the EC.”
You disputed my point about an EC being a significant boost to our local economy with some namby-pamby and unsupported speculation that out of town contractors would come in and scoop up the job. That hasn’t been the case, maybe it will be when/if we put this project out to bid, but the point is labor rates are higher in the places you mentioned. Fuel costs make shipping big ticket items in less cost effective than local fabrication (steel, concrete, etc.) and you have to pay out of towners mileage and R&B on top.
Sure, contractors are hungry, but there’s no way you wouldn’t have competitive, local, qualified bidders landing the job.
and out of $100-120 million, roughly half of that would be labor. If you think a $50/60 million in payroll dollars filtering through the local economy isn’t significant than you, my friend, are painfully ignorant to how our local economy functions.
In case you’ve missed the 100 times I’ve posted it, I’m not in favor of a sales tax increase to build the place either. B&B is the way to go and it shifts the burden away from the responsible working poor to those residents and tourists who still have disposable income to spend. Those people don’t care if they see another $5 on their room or $.50 on their tab.
Sy: You disputed my point about an EC being a significant boost to our local economy with some namby-pamby and unsupported speculation that out of town contractors would come in and scoop up the job.
Actually Mr. Wizard, I did no such thing. Go back and read my quote again… but this time try to include punctuation and don’t skip every other word.
First you will notice where I said your statement is a “assumption based upon local contractors getting all of the bids and employing local workers”… and that remains true. You might assume that will occur if and when the EC is built, but you do not – under any circumstances – know that to be true, and you have no other large scale projects of this magnitude to compare it to.
Now if you were to continue reading my post you would have seen the following paragraph:
“If the primary contracts went to companies from Omaha or St. Paul, or if the steel structure or windows were bought from out of town suppliers – what would the real impact to the local economy be?”
Notice that little curvy symbol at the end of my paragraph? That is called a question mark. Thus I wasn’t making a statement and instead I was asking a question. You, true to form, ignored that question and continued your illogical assumption about the impact to the local economy.
Again, the true economic impact from the EC will not occur until after construction ends. This is a fact acknowledged by the task force and explained in every study that has been done on the subject. If you ignore this fact you are not only painfully clueless about how our local economy works, but you are clueless about economics in general.
Now if you want to make the even larger assumption that the $120 Million would be raised by a B&B tax one might argue we receive a much larger net benefit (economically speaking) due to a large percentage of that tax revenue being generated from non-local taxpayers. However, if history is factored into these assumptions and we realize our city will most likely make the decision to push for higher sales taxes as a funding source, you are then taxing everyone for the benefit of some construction labor and suppliers.
Now I can see how someone who sells concrete, steel, or tile might appreciate that, but if we held a ribbon cutting ceremony today – we would be losing our asses. Development around an EC will likely take years, and that development won’t occur when the EC isn’t being used or is having a hard time booking events.
So in summary your original statement of a $120M EC being opened now being a “huge boost to our current Economic situation” could not possibly be more ill-conceived or just patently wrong on every level.
Thank God the task force and city leaders have been dragging their feet for so long – I don’t even want to think of what the economic impact would be to our city if we would have spent $120M more that we don’t have.
I just read the comments over at the Argus Leader on this story, what a bunch of idiots. There was even one guy who thinks the whole thing is being funded by a BBB tax. So much for educating the public.
Yeah, since they took away the linkage between articles on the front page and the regular forums, it’s mostly idiots who comment on the articles. On the old system, one of the regulars would usually crush whoever made the stupid comment.
Making fun of crazy LTEs used to be a lot more fun too.