Somebody actually took the time to add up the interest?

Had to chuckle about this. Of course this wasn’t in the mayor’s proposal.


#1 Alice15 on 07.27.11 at 8:21 am

Of course it’s not in the Mayor’s plan. They are so hell bent on passing a bad plan in a bad location that the truth is somewhat minimal at this point.

#2 Poly43 on 07.27.11 at 1:36 pm

I have little respect for the person who put this together. While it all rings true, Andy is a sore loser who would be showing graphs about what a great bargain we’d have IF these were the same numbers for DT. Same for Jennifer and her gang.

#3 Alice15 on 07.27.11 at 2:49 pm

Poly – I am going to disagree with you. Unfortunately – we have to count on individuals willing to put in extra time (By the way, there is more than one person publishing this information. Andy just happen to put his name to his posts.) to really find out what all of these numbers mean. The Mayor and his team are counting on passing all of this without anyone being smart enough to see through the gray area. I don’t care if it is Andy or anyone else – this is one more thing to show this is a bad plan.

#4 Scott on 07.27.11 at 3:13 pm

But, Alice, you would ignore these numbers if you got your way in where it is built, right?

#5 Tom H. on 07.27.11 at 3:37 pm

But don’t you get it? Pavillion bonds are done in 2014, and Sewer bonds are done in 2017, so we can use that money for EC bonds. And, OBVIOUSLY, the city will NEVER need to bond for ANYTHING else from 2017 through 2033, so there’s no need to have any spare bonding capacity. Buy it now! Pay it off later!

Seriously, though, every one of these reports about how we can easily pay our bonding obligations assumes that 1) the recession will be over soon, and 2) post-recession, we will have unbelievably torrid economic growth (like 5% annually). The first assumption is not a given (we may have entered a “new normal”) and the second assumption is almost certainly wrong, even if the first comes true. We should be planning for resiliency (i.e. worst-case scenarios). Instead our civic leaders are convincing us to make enormous financial investments by telling us that everything will be magically better in the morning.

Wishful thinking is not sound economic policy.

#6 Sy on 07.27.11 at 3:40 pm

No, we wouldn’t ignore the numbers, but the pro-forma would look markedly different than this one for a downtown facility. The ROI on the downtown site factoring in ALL direct and indirect impacts would make this nut much easier to crack.

Yet another example: The new tunnel they are talking about for under Russell for pedestrian access. How much will this barely used, yet obviously needed addition add to the project’s cost? And what is the plan for North of Russell? Are we buying up the empty bank, the offices and the nearly closed Casino for redevelopment now?

Cooper and Beck just gave a presentation to the Council talking about all the potential for downtown, they even mentioned events and concerts and how they would like to see “outside the box” ideas on how to attract more of those. Uh…you can start by locating your main facility for these things in the right place.

#7 Alice15 on 07.27.11 at 4:06 pm

Scott – you are right- this was not my choice, BUT, I have always said I would get on board if two things could be accomplished: 1) Private funding (which the Mayor promised in his original plan – I believe $24.5 million to be exact) was on the forefront of the total cost. and 2) they could identify 2-3 developers that are ready to turn dirt with a new EC at the current location to enhance this area. Neither one of these has happened. In fact – neither one of these has ANYTHING – not even a Subway that wants to be out there. This administration has been “gray” (and that is about the nicest word I can come up with) through this whole process. Their problem became when people actually looked at the little amount of information they were providing, and finding misguided truths/information at every turn. This administration has also failed to ignore every fact out there regarding building and locating a new EC. In my mind, yes, downtown is a no-brainer, but was there another location within city limits that would make sense? Who knows because that was never even looked at. This has been a debacle since day 1 and if you have a problem with that – 9th and Dakota is your destination. For me, my family is currently planning our trip to see the Twins where we will park our car downtown for the weekend, stay at a hotel, eat, drink, shop and be merry all while providing economic stimulus to downtown Minneapolis.

#8 Scott on 07.27.11 at 5:16 pm

So you wouldn’t go see the Twins if there was a new building here?

#9 l3wis on 07.27.11 at 9:16 pm

I found this line in the ballot language interesting:

“There will be no new taxes, no increase in property taxes, and no increase in sales tax rates authorized by the current City Council to pay for the Project.”

Really? How can rhetoric be put in ballot language? Property values will increase around an events center, property taxes will go up. And the wording ‘Authorized by the current council’ in other words, nothing stops future councils and mayors from increasing taxes and fees to help subsidize the facility. Even if you support an EC at the Arena site, you need to vote against the project because of the half-ass funding proposal. It looks like something 6th Graders could come up with while trading baseball cards and comic books.

#10 Alice15 on 07.27.11 at 10:01 pm

@Scott – I would go see them, but at the current location, that is where the spending would end. Where would I take my kids to eat? Jonos? Or better yet – Caseys for some pizza?
@Scott – the whole thing is half-ass – the funding is the cherry on the cake. Bad plan!

#11 Scott on 07.27.11 at 10:50 pm

Come on Alice, that’s silly. You won’t go eat anywhere because it’s not walking distance?

#12 l3wis on 07.28.11 at 3:59 am

Hey, Scott, be nice. Quen Be De Knudson went to see a concert a few years back at the Tyson Center and complained she had to buy ‘Cokes’ at the event and was mad she was giving her ‘Coke’ money to Sioux City. Even though she could have filled her car with gas in SF before she left and bought a couple of ‘Cokes’ at said gas station, in SF. She could have also packed a sack lunch she could have ate on the drive there.

#13 Alice15 on 07.28.11 at 9:04 am

I can actually say this – we rarely, and I mean rarely, eat at an establishment before or after an event in the industrial park. If we do – it’s at McDonalds on 12th. We attended Hot Harley Nights – parked in the Shriver Square parking lot (which of course was 1/2 full again – idiots), shopped at the kid’s toy store, had a bite to eat, and then shopped at Zanbroz. We dropped probably $100 that night. We go to Omaha, Minneapolis, ST Paul, or Des Moines – and we park and spend money. We actually like to do things and WALK around before and after an event. That’s what makes it an event. I can guarantee you this – I can’t remember when we have spent more than $50 going to something at the arena in the last 5 years. There’s nothing out there to spend money at. Say what you will – but the curent location does not promote spending money – unless you want to get your hair cut at Stewarts before hand.

#14 rufusx on 07.28.11 at 1:25 pm

That’s correct, the whole ambiance of the Arena as you are walking out is “We need to go somewhere else.”

And the whole attitude associated with anticipating going THERE (the Arena) is “We need to stop somewhere else – before we get there.”

Now think about it – is that how you frame the idea of a destination – a place to be – in your social-consciousness?

It’s about as INVITING as the (dropped now, because they learned! – finally.) SDSU promotional theme “You can GO ANYWHERE, from here.” (i.e. – this is NOT the place to be) campaign.

#15 l3wis on 07.28.11 at 2:20 pm

At least the concessions will do well at the Arena location? Maybe that’s what they are getting at. I hope they start serving liquor at the new EC. That is what is so awesome about the Qwest center, they had several full bars on each level.

#16 I'm saying NO to a Sioux Falls Sportpalast on 10.24.11 at 10:46 pm

[…] No doubt there would be jobs created to build it, but taxpayers are being asked to pay for it and the full story there is being minimized – the jobs last two years, paying for it takes twenty. No thanks, not in this […]