Arlington NASCAR track dead?

Ron Wanttaja wrote:


For those outside the Puget Sound area, the deal was killed when the developers
offered to put up $50M of the estimated $300M cost...and expected the state and
local governments to pony up the rest, plus another $70M in road improvements.
The county also wanted a guarantee that the track would actually host one of the
top races (Nextel Cup), and the developers wouldn't agree.

Well, since International Speedway Corporation and NASCAR are essentially
the same corporation (yes believe me, there is a HUGE conflict of interest
there), chances are that they wouldn't build a track they didn't intend
to give a date (most likely stealing it from a non-ISC track).

Of course, the goal of any sports franchise is to bilk as much benefits
out of the local taxpayers as possible. Goes without saying...

Ron Natalie wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:


For those outside the Puget Sound area, the deal was killed when the
developers
offered to put up $50M of the estimated $300M cost...and expected the
state and
local governments to pony up the rest, plus another $70M in road
improvements.
The county also wanted a guarantee that the track would actually host
one of the
top races (Nextel Cup), and the developers wouldn't agree.


Well, since International Speedway Corporation and NASCAR are essentially
the same corporation (yes believe me, there is a HUGE conflict of interest
there), chances are that they wouldn't build a track they didn't intend
to give a date (most likely stealing it from a non-ISC track).

Of course, the goal of any sports franchise is to bilk as much benefits
out of the local taxpayers as possible. Goes without saying...

That's for sure. I wonder if there is a community anywhere that has
actually had a net economic benefit from a sports stadium?


Matt

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...

Believe me, if you had a NASCAR national event there, they will most
likely
put in a temporary tower. There's a TON of heavy metal that follows that
circuit around.

"Believe me". . . Now where have I heard that before??? Is that anything
like "trust me, I won't (snipped by the gross police)".

Rich S.

Absolutely. Just not recently since construction costs have soared. Ask
the people in KC if the Truman Sports Complex has had a net economic benefit
over the past 30 years. Then ask them if they approved the tax issue on
improvements this last election.

(answers: yes and no)

John Stricker

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Ron Natalie wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:


For those outside the Puget Sound area, the deal was killed when the
developers
offered to put up $50M of the estimated $300M cost...and expected the
state and
local governments to pony up the rest, plus another $70M in road
improvements.
The county also wanted a guarantee that the track would actually host
one of the
top races (Nextel Cup), and the developers wouldn't agree.


Well, since International Speedway Corporation and NASCAR are essentially
the same corporation (yes believe me, there is a HUGE conflict of
interest
there), chances are that they wouldn't build a track they didn't intend
to give a date (most likely stealing it from a non-ISC track).

Of course, the goal of any sports franchise is to bilk as much benefits
out of the local taxpayers as possible. Goes without saying...

That's for sure. I wonder if there is a community anywhere that has
actually had a net economic benefit from a sports stadium?


Matt

Absolutely. Just not recently since construction costs have soared. Ask
the people in KC if the Truman Sports Complex has had a net economic benefit
over the past 30 years. Then ask them if they approved the tax issue on
improvements this last election.

(answers: yes and no)

John Stricker
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Say, Steakbreath...
Where the H__ have you been?
Herding heifers in the Kansass heat?


Barnyard BOb - too klose to KC for komfort

John Stricker wrote:

Absolutely. Just not recently since construction costs have soared. Ask
the people in KC if the Truman Sports Complex has had a net economic benefit
over the past 30 years. Then ask them if they approved the tax issue on
improvements this last election.

(answers: yes and no)

That makes no sense. If they really felt the complex has had economic
value, they would have approved improvements to keep it valuable. Or
were the improvements just fluff to cater to corporate big-wigs or some
such?


Matt

Barnyard BOb - wrote:


Absolutely. Just not recently since construction costs have soared. Ask
the people in KC if the Truman Sports Complex has had a net economic benefit
over the past 30 years. Then ask them if they approved the tax issue on
improvements this last election.

(answers: yes and no)

John Stricker

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Say, Steakbreath...
Where the H__ have you been?
Herding heifers in the Kansass heat?


Barnyard BOb - too klose to KC for komfort

If you'd stay upwind it wouldn't be so bad...


Matt

You'd have to ask Unka Bob about it more than me, but the issue with the
renovation is complicated. I'm sure he's one that will agree that the
complex has been an economic boon for the area but I bet he voted against
the tax issue.

For one thing, there has been a 30 year rivalry between KC, KS and KC, MO
over the complex. Brawls have broken out over the fact that KC, MO
residents get first shot at season tickets since it's on the MO side of the
river. MO residents have always felt like the KS side, where a lot of KC
residents prefer to live due to lower taxes, especially the wealthier ones,
have taken a free ride on the backs of the MO citizens since they bear the
brunt of the taxes for the complex and the tax issue was, again, on the MO
side of the river.

OTOH, the new KS Speedway is on the KS side of the city and the MO residents
didn't pay for any of that. Right now, it's making some money. We'll see
if it's half as successful as the Truman sports complex in 30 years.

John Stricker

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
John Stricker wrote:

Absolutely. Just not recently since construction costs have soared. Ask
the people in KC if the Truman Sports Complex has had a net economic
benefit over the past 30 years. Then ask them if they approved the tax
issue on improvements this last election.

(answers: yes and no)

That makes no sense. If they really felt the complex has had economic
value, they would have approved improvements to keep it valuable. Or were
the improvements just fluff to cater to corporate big-wigs or some such?


Matt

Absolutely. Just not recently since construction costs have soared. Ask
the people in KC if the Truman Sports Complex has had a net economic benefit
over the past 30 years. Then ask them if they approved the tax issue on
improvements this last election.

(answers: yes and no)

John Stricker

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Ron Natalie wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:


For those outside the Puget Sound area, the deal was killed when the
developers
offered to put up $50M of the estimated $300M cost...and expected the
state and
local governments to pony up the rest, plus another $70M in road
improvements.
The county also wanted a guarantee that the track would actually host
one of the
top races (Nextel Cup), and the developers wouldn't agree.


Well, since International Speedway Corporation and NASCAR are essentially
the same corporation (yes believe me, there is a HUGE conflict of
interest
there), chances are that they wouldn't build a track they didn't intend
to give a date (most likely stealing it from a non-ISC track).

Of course, the goal of any sports franchise is to bilk as much benefits
out of the local taxpayers as possible. Goes without saying...

That's for sure. I wonder if there is a community anywhere that has
actually had a net economic benefit from a sports stadium?


Matt



We have all heard of the Trickle down theory of economics but when it comes to
sports stadiums and sports complexes, the correct name if "Trickle Up
Economics". That means that everybody in the community will by way of
increased taxes to build and support the complex will have their money trickle
up to the super rich owners of the teams and are the only benefactors of the
centers. The worst part of it all is that people seem to ignore all the facts
in some mistaken loyality to these sports enterprises. I have watched all this
crap occur three separate times in the last 10 years in Houston and couldn't
believe my eyes. Now I have seen it occur again in Arlington Texas, as those
people who were already paying through the nose for the Texas Rangers, voted to
tax their asses off to get the Dallas Cowboys Football team. And NO, they
Cowboys don't intend to change their name either.

While a few people in each community receive great benefits from these sports
stadiums, that benefit is always at the cost of the tax paying citizens, not
from outside the community. Even though Houston claims to have received
millions in economic benefit from hosting the Superbowl, the reality was that
it cost even more millions for the city to host it. The taxpayers paid for the
stadium, paid for the preparations, paid for the thousands of hours of police
overtime to provide security, and paid for the cleanup after all the drunken
fans left tons of trash littering the city.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Absolutely. Just not recently since construction costs have soared. Ask
the people in KC if the Truman Sports Complex has had a net economic
benefit
over the past 30 years. Then ask them if they approved the tax issue on
improvements this last election.

(answers: yes and no)

That makes no sense. If they really felt the complex has had economic
value, they would have approved improvements to keep it valuable. Or
were the improvements just fluff to cater to corporate big-wigs or some
such?


Matt

You mean like the 200+ Million spent on renovations to the Houston Astodome to
pacify the Houston Oilers with new exceutive suites only to have them packup
and leave a couple of years later because the city didn't vote them a new $500
million stadium entirely at taxpayer expense? There is not a new statium being
built anywhere in this country that is NOT just fluff to cater to the corporate
big-wigs.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)