Ray Comfort gets a banana shoved up his ass
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHN3JtyUXg&feature=player_embedded#t=373[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHN3JtyUXg&feature=player_embedded#t=373[/youtube]
I attended the last EC Task Force meeting today. They will have another informal meeting to go over a few minor changes before presenting their recommendations to the council and public, but it is pretty much a done deal.
Before I go over the recommendations, I want to point out three glaring items I got out of the meeting today;
• There will not be enough hotel rooms to accommodate the new facility for several years after it’s completion
• Not only do they want to fund it with a retail tax increase, but the CVB wants a $2 additional hotel room tax (councilor Pat Costello was quick to point out that this is a ‘FEE’ not a ‘TAX’ not sure if he was being sarcastic or not).
• There was no talk about putting it to a public vote anymore, they seem to be steering away from that idea. But instead of just saying that they avoided the topic all together – so that is up in the air.
Here are the likely recommendations to the council and public;
• They want the new EC, Convention Center and Arena all in one location
• It will seat 12,000 but can be expandable in the future for 15,000
• They will encourage redevelopment of the surrounding area (hotels, restaurants, etc.)
• They want affordable or even free trolley and transportation options from the site to downtown, the mall, etc.
• They want to expand the Convention Center by 75%
• Relocate Howard Wood field (Darin Daby, president of the school board admitted that they have already been in the planning stages of what the new HW wood look like, which surprised me).
• Another private Hotel/Restaurant attached to the CC needs to be built at the same time as the project and have 150 rooms (at least).
• It will be funded with a retail tax increase with a sunset provision. (but this is wishy washy, because a future city council and mayor can find other projects to spend the money on once the EC is paid off. I am not buying it. I am also weary about not mentioning the public vote)
• They will pursue private sponsorships
Other interesting moments in the final CSL consulting presentation;
1) The Skyforce and Storm don’t seem interested in moving from the Arena. 2) Local and State colleges would NOT hold events there 3) Not big enough to support NCAA BB tourneys 4) Sioux Falls considered to be ‘Hit or Miss’ when it comes to concert bookings 5) SF can only expect 10 concerts a year 6) They want to build about 26-32 box suites 7) It is expected to bring in about 3.1-3.6 million in revenue a year and cost about 3.2 – 3.4 million to operate per year. 8) The reason they oppose a BBB tax is because it will be hard to sell convention events here. Omaha’s room tax is double what SF is now. 9) Rapid City’s CVB spends 3 times what SF does and has more hotel rooms 10) CSL felt having all the facilities in one location is a good idea.
After the presentation, J & L Harley-Davidson co-owner Jim Entennmen(sp?) gave a ‘Quality of Life’ speech, you know, the one about how this isn’t about money, blah, blah, blah, the same BS speech we heard before the Rec Center vote and the Indoor pool vote. It’s like these guys keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.
Two things I took from the meeting;
• CSL basically said our current Arena and CC is adequate and serving the needs of the community just fine right now. Which adds to my argument that we do need a new EC, but let’s not break ground for another 7-10 years.
• They claim that the EC will pretty much break even on operating expenses but will have a $30 million dollar economic impact on the community.
I’m sure it will have an economic impact on the city, mostly the people sitting on the EC task force, but not joe six-pack.

If Scooby-Doo is running for any office and is not an incumbent, Scooby will have my vote.
And you, Homeland Security folks, list me as a military veteran, patriot and Minuteman. You have my address.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhydyxRjujU&feature=player_embedded#t=118[/youtube]

Six Republican senators have introduced an amendment that would block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing its recently announced Net neutrality policy.
Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced the amendment to an appropriations bill. It would prevent the FCC from getting funding for any initiative to uphold Net neutrality. According to The Hill, the co-sponsors are Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
The move appears to be an attempt to pre-empt the FCC’s expected new policy to ensure that Internet service providers don’t discriminate between different types of information on their networks.
On Monday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gave a speech in which he outlined the FCC’s plan to enforce Net neutrality, a position President Barack Obama held during his campaign for president.
In recent years, concern has grown that some Internet service providers are slowing down “access to high speed Internet for things like Internet-based voice calls, video streaming, and legal file sharing (that carriers might wish to block or at least charge extra for),” writes Ian Paul at PCWorld magazine.
While Net neutrality is supported by Internet-reliant companies such as Google and Microsoft, it is opposed by major Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. Those three have come out against Genachowski’s plan, ChannelWeb reports.
The part of Genachowski’s plan that ISPs are most opposed to, according to PCWorld’s Paul, is that it would apply to mobile carriers as well — cellphones, Blackberries and the like. Bandwidth for wireless is not infinite, and some carriers have argued that they need to shape some traffic on their networks in order to make sure there is space available for everyone.
But, as the experience of other countries has shown, that is not necessarily the way “traffic shaping” is used. In Canada, throttling some types of traffic on the Internet — not on wireless — hasbecome commonplace. It is used to slow down peer-to-peer file sharing networks.
“Broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications,” Genachowski said in his speech. “Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed.”
“I am deeply concerned by the direction the FCC appears to be heading,†Sen. Hutchison said in a statement. “Even during a severe downturn, America has experienced robust investment and innovation in network performance and online content and applications. For that innovation to continue, we must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations.”
A Net neutrality bill is expected to be introduced in the House of Representatives this fall.
— Daniel Tencer