Starting to have doubts about the opposition to the Falcons' stadium proposal. (Atlanta: rental car, sales)

[toll_booth]

The opposition to the new stadium generally boils down to this: Part of the funding will rely on taxes, and taxes are bad, therefore public financing of this stadium is bad. There may be legitimate concerns, but the outcry so heavily mimics Tea-Party-like noise that it's becoming harder and harder for me to sort out reasonable objections over silly ones. Consider this:

1. The Falcons have tentatively agreed to pay about $100 million more for the new stadium, including paying off of the outstanding bonds on the Dome. That takes their share to around $800 million. Now consider that the estimated total price tag, not including infrastructure improvements, is in the neighborhood of $1 billion, that means that the City of Atlanta would be financing roughly 20% of the project. Not bad at all.

2. If you don't rent a car or stay in a hotel in Atlanta, your taxes will not go up by one dime to pay for this. No new sales tax, income tax, "fee," etc. will be coming in, other than the proposed hotel and rental car taxes. Nobody is going to raise your taxes for this stadium unless you choose to pay them.

3. Not just the city of Atlanta, but the entire metro area, would take a huge blow to its collective image if the Falcons were to move away. AFAIK that option is not on the table, but we're kidding ourselves if Arthur Blank wouldn't at least toss the idea around. Los Angeles had to learn that lesson the hard way. Speaking of LA, they've finally ponied up the funds for a new stadium, conditional on the arrival of an NFL team. The 49ers and Vikings were rumored to be front-runners for a move to LA, until they finalized plans for a new stadium. And Oakland, St. Louis, and perhaps even Buffalo and Jacksonville are not out of the question. Oh and yes, you'd better believe that we could be up there as well.

"But I'm not a Falcons fan, so this doesn't affect me." LOL FAIL. We've already lost one major-league team. Now we could make an excuse for that, being a warm-weather team (that was not the real reason the Thrashers left town, but I won't divert this thread and go off on that). We do NOT need to be known as a city that went from four major league teams--in all of the "big four" sports--to two in less than a decade. That would be a tremendous blow not just to the psyche, but the image, of metro Atlanta. But hey, what do I know. Awesome stuff happened in LA after the Rams and Raiders left town. /snark

The ONLY legitimate concern I have seen raised against a new stadium is the sudden concern over concussions in the NFL. If that escalates and isn't dealt with, football will suffer a huge blow--no pun intended--and it will impact attendance at not just Falcons' games but college games as well. But let's get honest--football is our biggest sport, and it ain't going anywhere any time soon.

So let's get real about the new stadium. When you put the Tea-bagger arguments aside, a new stadium doesn't look all that bad of an option. Yeah they oughta wait for awhile, yeah it'd be nice if the Falcons paid for 100% of the project, but come on. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. Let's go ahead and finance this stadium already, with the stipulation that the Falcons must absorb any cost overruns. And let's show the nation this marvel that we are about to erect in the heart of our city!

[brownhornet]

Honestly the city shouldn't have to fund any of it. Considering the dome is perfectly fine, if they want a new stadium make Blank pay for it...it's not as if he can't do it. Can't really compare it to places like Arlington with the Cowboys because the people out there are diehard Cowboys fans. Probably 70% of the people here don't give a damn about the Falcons or the Hawks.

[MattCW]

1. It's a pure private project, so why is Atlanta financing more than 0%?
2. There are far greater benefits that could be gained to its citizens, as well as attracting more tourists through other means than a stadium, that isn't going to do anything different (except be smaller!) than the existing stadium.
3. We gave them a stadium years ago and the current one is about as far from obsolete as you can get. So why is ANY public money being spent on a new toy for a purely private interest? If Mr. Blank wants to fund the remaining $140 million or whatever it is now, let him. That's his business, and his money.

[lastminutemom]

Blank is recently divorced with young children. (Second marriage.) He takes a lot of pleasure in being involved, more than just showing up for the games. He won't leave town, unless he sales.

He should finance this....

[noah]

On top of that the state will owe tens of millions to pay off the Dome which will not be viable without the Falcons. Most stadium deals are heavily paid for by taxpayers, this deal is much more slanted towards the team paying, nice to see.

[Brillemeister]

It's important to remember that, though slim, there will likely be a negative impact to hotels and car rental agencies from any new tax. A hotel room in Atlanta is already significantly more expensive than in many comparable markets, to boot. Also, who says the cost of the new stadium won't suddenly increase during construction?

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by MattCW

1. It's a pure private project, so why is Atlanta financing more than 0%?

That is all that matters.

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Los Angeles had to learn that lesson the hard way. Speaking of LA, they've finally ponied up the funds for a new stadium, conditional on the arrival of an NFL team. The 49ers and Vikings were rumored to be front-runners for a move to LA, until they finalized plans for a new stadium.

Actually most people in LA are very much against spending public money to make multi-millionaires and billionaires even richer. A tax-financed stadium would stand no chance of passing a public vote here. Most of us feel like we don't need the NFL and they don't need us and that's been working fine so far.

What LA did "pony up" was bonds that are supposed to guaranteed by a private company (AEG) and repaid through stadium taxes. Technically those are for rebuilding the convention center, which will make up part of the stadium complex. The stadium is supposed to be funded privately. Now that AEG is being sold, that's probably off the table anyway.

In any event I don't think that the Falcons to LA is a serious proposal. No one is even talking about it out here. Is the Falcons owner offering splitting ownership with the people wanting to build stadiums out here? Because that's what they want. The reason why they want that and why NFL owners are opposed is complicated, but nothing happens without it. Teams like the Falcons and Vikings are using LA for leverage to get what they really want.

[tikigod311]

1. The Falcons have tentatively agreed to pay about $100 million more for the new stadium, including paying off of the outstanding bonds on the Dome. That takes their share to around $800 million. Now consider that the estimated total price tag, not including infrastructure improvements, is in the neighborhood of $1 billion, that means that the City of Atlanta would be financing roughly 20% of the project. Not bad at all.

Apparently that is not true.
http://saportareport.com/blog/2013/0...l-motel-taxes/

Originally Posted by toll_booth

2. If you don't rent a car or stay in a hotel in Atlanta, your taxes will not go up by one dime to pay for this. No new sales tax, income tax, "fee," etc. will be coming in, other than the proposed hotel and rental car taxes. Nobody is going to raise your taxes for this stadium unless you choose to pay them.

Doubt that is true. Do you think that the improved infrastructure is going to magically appear? Sidewalks, Roads, Sewage, Drainage, etc. I would bet that those projects will have a substantial dollar amount attached to that. But let's not think about that...

Here is my problem with the whole thing. Some fabulously wealthy rich guy / organization is going to threaten us! Give us your money or we will leave. THEN FN LEAVE. Screw that mentality. We should not be bullied around like that. We owe them NOTHING, NOT A DIME.

Why, for the love of God, do we need to pay one cent towards increasing to profits of an already well off organization? Why? Why? Why?

[ATLTJL]

Not wanting public funds to go to a project that only benefits private parties is a Tea Party outlook?

What color are the trees in your world?