U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Denver
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-18-2015, 07:07 AM
 
459 posts, read 672,170 times
Reputation: 726

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
The fair and stock show are in the same position. They make enough to cover the expense of the event but not to upgrade the facility. I just picked 300 million I'm not sure what the exact number would be but if the study is worth anything it will provide the number then it will be interesting to see the states reaction.
It's not the 300 million figure that was bothersome, it was 300 million + grant. As I said where the subsidy comes from and how it's used are important. A grant of that magnitude is not appropriate in this instance and is just as repulsive as the operation revenue lifeline the state keeps giving them to stay afloat-which is what sets the fair apart from the NWSS-.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-18-2015, 07:14 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,174 posts, read 20,959,783 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertgoodman View Post
It's not the 300 million figure that was bothersome, it was 300 million + grant. As I said where the subsidy comes from and how it's used are important. A grant of that magnitude is not appropriate in this instance and is just as repulsive as the operation revenue lifeline the state keeps giving them to stay afloat-which is what sets the fair apart from the NWSS-.
Oh then give the 300 million and no grant as I do not think the fair would need it once they got the 300 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2015, 08:01 AM
 
Location: lakewood
572 posts, read 397,026 times
Reputation: 309
Gimme gimme gimme....

and don't extort me for a local contribution, to
also show local support towards a local revenue cash cow...



Basically?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2015, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,174 posts, read 20,959,783 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by eatsDEN View Post
Gimme gimme gimme....

and don't extort me for a local contribution, to
also show local support towards a local revenue cash cow...



Basically?
I would have no problem if they worked out a deal that included state/county/city support.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2015, 10:28 AM
 
459 posts, read 672,170 times
Reputation: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Oh then give the 300 million and no grant as I do not think the fair would need it once they got the 300 million.
You are missing the point. The 300 million as a grant is a problem which is basically the same as just giving the fair 300 million.

The state just giving the fair 300 million is not realistic with the plethora of other demands on that money. Forming an rta district and borrowing against future tax revenue increases like the NWSS MIGHT be realistic depending on the improvements and financial makeup of the district.

However, the state is not in a position to just hand over 300 million on a silver platter like you are proposing (nor should they). They cannot do it for roads, schools. Nwss, etc so they certainly cannot do it for the fair.

Once again where a subsidy comes from and how it is used is important
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2015, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,174 posts, read 20,959,783 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertgoodman View Post
You are missing the point. The 300 million as a grant is a problem which is basically the same as just giving the fair 300 million.

The state just giving the fair 300 million is not realistic with the plethora of other demands on that money. Forming an rta district and borrowing against future tax revenue increases like the NWSS MIGHT be realistic depending on the improvements and financial makeup of the district.

However, the state is not in a position to just hand over 300 million on a silver platter like you are proposing (nor should they). They cannot do it for roads, schools. Nwss, etc so they certainly cannot do it for the fair.

Once again where a subsidy comes from and how it is used is important
This goes back to my orgional point that if you are going to question a subsidy to the fair you need to question all the subsidies. To focus only on one is disingenuous at best or it implys a different motive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2015, 11:27 AM
 
459 posts, read 672,170 times
Reputation: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
This goes back to my orgional point that if you are going to question a subsidy to the fair you need to question all the subsidies. To focus only on one is disingenuous at best or it implys a different motive.
I do question all subsidies, as citizens we should. But I fail to see how making the point that the type of subsidy you are proposing for the fair wouldn't fly in Colorado implies some other motive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2015, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,174 posts, read 20,959,783 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertgoodman View Post
I do question all subsidies, as citizens we should. But I fail to see how making the point that the type of subsidy you are proposing for the fair wouldn't fly in Colorado implies some other motive.
Because, for example, if people are going to support a subsidy for the western stock show in Denver then say the state can not afford it for the state fair in Pueblo then it just comes across as disingenuous and makes us in Pueblo question if that is the real reason especially when the ones suggesting it are quick to suggest the fair should be moved to the stock show grounds. Now if they came out and said both should be canceled because the state can not afford it then they would have more credibility in my opinion.


Now if you question all subsides then that is a different story and that is a legitimate debate but it should not be singled out just to the fair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2015, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,111 posts, read 4,883,135 times
Reputation: 5429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Because, for example, if people are going to support a subsidy for the western stock show in Denver then say the state can not afford it for the state fair in Pueblo then it just comes across as disingenuous and makes us in Pueblo question if that is the real reason especially when the ones suggesting it are quick to suggest the fair should be moved to the stock show grounds. Now if they came out and said both should be canceled because the state can not afford it then they would have more credibility in my opinion.


Now if you question all subsides then that is a different story and that is a legitimate debate but it should not be singled out just to the fair.
For the last time.

THE STATE DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE THE NWSS.

The money from the state would come in the form of lease-purchase agreements to help build the buildings to be used by CSU, and the amount would be capped at $250 million. This money is contingent on Denver voters extending hotel and car rental taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2015, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,174 posts, read 20,959,783 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
For the last time.

THE STATE DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE THE NWSS.

The money from the state would come in the form of lease-purchase agreements to help build the buildings to be used by CSU, and the amount would be capped at $250 million. This money is contingent on Denver voters extending hotel and car rental taxes.
The state is giving the stock show hundreds of millions of dollars. Call it what you want but if someone is going to be consistent they should be against both not say its ok for the state to give the stock show money but they can not afford to give the fair money then say move the fair to the stock show. That is disingenuous at best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Denver
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top