Why is no one blaming the Mayor (Atlanta: lease, tenants)

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Why would they not be mutually exclusive?

If the $200+ million in taxes can be funneled from the hotel tax to the Falcons stadium, why could that not have been funneled to the Braves to move to that South site?

Two reasons:

1. Arthur Blank and the Falcons are putting up $800+ million for a new stadium, which covers over 80% of the construction cost (quite a significant down payment). Obviously, that's a heck of an inducement to get the ball rolling on a new facility.
2. Per state law, funds from the hotel tax are only designated for GWCCA-owned facilities. If the Braves wanted in on that funding, they would've had to negotiate with the GWCCA/state (not the City of Atlanta/Reed) for a potential new stadium on the GWCC campus. To change that law, you'd have to go through the General Assembly.

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

\I'm working off the KReed's words that the COA wants to be fiscally conservative (ie not raising taxes).

Oh, okay, so you're not talking about actual policy, you're talking about political rhetoric. In that case, yeah, it was the best Reed could do once the move was announced. But honestly, you'd have to be pretty gullible to interpret that as the mayor making a policy decision to back the Falcons at the expense of the Braves.

[magnetar]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

I'm able to look at this objectively and in doing so it just doesn't make an ounce of sense

Except you're not. You choose to downplay the size and frequency of non-football events at the new stadium; you make assumptions about which sport is more economically viable without actual data to support your claims. There's nothing wrong with having a point of view but yours is not an objective assessment.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by magnetar

Except you're not. You choose to downplay the size and frequency of non-football events at the new stadium; you make assumptions about which sport is more economically viable without actual data to support your claims. There's nothing wrong with having a point of view but yours is not an objective assessment.

What events are the new stadium attracting that would not continue to come to the Georgia Dome?

Super Bowl every 7-10 years. This new stadium likely gets Atlanta 2 Super Bowls in it's lifespan.
A BCS bowl with the shot at hosting the title game every 4 years.
Final Four every 7-8 years.
15-17,000 people for MLS games (17 per year)

Those are the big events. Am I missing anything?

Put the new Braves Stadium where the new Falcons stadium is going and suddenly you have a year round attraction that has a steady event list (81 Braves games Mar - Oct and 41 Hawks games Nov - June). This would allow a development which has a draw all year long. Keeping things the same down there (which they essentially are doing, with a few additional events) is NOT going to fix that area. You'd just have the same setup with a few eateries in CNN center where people hit before the game, but there will be nothing done to the surrounding area. Ballparks are successful at this. Stadiums are not.

[MattCW]

Dang gt, never thought you and I would be on the same side of any issue, but here we are. I've been saying the exact same things on here ever since the move was announced, and we keep hearing about all these ancillary events, but no one is ponying up the data to show them as having any kind of economic benefit above what they provide now.

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

\Put the new Braves Stadium where the new Falcons stadium is going and suddenly you have a year round attraction that has a steady event list (81 Braves games Mar - Oct and 41 Hawks games Nov - June).

So the Hawks are going to play basketball in the Braves stadium, and having been presented this vision, Mayor Reed sent the Braves to Cobb in order to keep the Falcons in downtown. Got it.

[jsvh]

Redirect $200m from an existing stadium, from an existing hotel tax source to build a $1.2B stadium that will host world class events and multiple different sports and teams?

Or pay $300m (plus $90m in bonds) from property taxes plus four new taxes to a $650m stadium that is drawing a downsized crowd for a single sport that is less popular and has been losing popularity?

It was not one or the other, and I would prefer no public money went to private teams. But the choice is pretty easy. Reed did a great job with these deals and his fiscal responsibility and cunning has impressed me.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by Cameron H

So the Hawks are going to play basketball in the Braves stadium, and having been presented this vision, Mayor Reed sent the Braves to Cobb in order to keep the Falcons in downtown. Got it.

Ummm no. Philips Arena is a couple hundred yards away from that site.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Redirect $200m from an existing stadium, from an existing hotel tax source to build a $1.2B stadium that will host world class events and multiple different sports and teams?

For what? 30 days per year at most?

Or pay $300m (plus $90m in bonds) from property taxes plus four new taxes to a $650m stadium that is drawing a downsized crowd for a single sport that is less popular and has been losing popularity?

For a minimum of 81 days per year which as gtcorndog posted above STILL has greater attendance over the whole year than the football stadium.

[Ant131531]

Why do you care anyway? You live in Cobb. In the end, it was Cobb representative that voted for the Stadium to be placed there, not Reeds. You're placing your tax and traffic increase on Reds and not on any Cobb representatives. Shame on you for your conformation bias.

Prepare for your taxes to increase and your traffic to be hell on game days.