Why is no one blaming the Mayor (Atlanta, Avalon: tax, live)

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Money that is collected mostly from out-of-towners doesn't make it any less taxpayer money.

Oh come on dude, you know better. If you want to talk numbers in terms of attendance at both venues as a line of argumentation, that's one thing, but this thing about tourist dollars being "taxpayer dollars" in the sense that it's generally used is a no go.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by cqholt

COA negotiated on behalf of the falcons and state of Georgia. The $200M is not taxpayer money, unlike what Cobb is giving the Braves, but money collected from hotel/motel taxes that could only be spent on stadium/arena upgrades.
Also, a baseball stadium can only be used for 1 sport that has 80-82 games per year. While the falcons stadium is a multi-purpose stadium that can host several events, not just sports.

No one is debating that, but that 1 sport (baseball), and it's 2.5+ million attendees, has a bigger economic impact and more redevelopment potential than a stadium that host multiple events.

That $200 million could've gone toward keeping the Braves and instead it went to keeping the Falcons.

KReed,

[Ant131531]

So instead, what you're essentially saying is, you wanted Falcons to leave to some far flung suburb? I wonder how mad and angry people would be then and people would essentially be saying the same thing they are about the Braves.

All people would have said then is 'Why does Atlanta need to build a new ballpark??! The one we have now is fine! Mayor Reed sucks!"

Damned if you do....damned if you don't.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

At the end of the day, I think it boils down to the fact that the Falcons wanted to stay in the city and the Braves were looking for an out and for the most part, Mayor Reed did the best he could with what he had.

Why didn't he simply give them a timely response to their proposal?

The Braves had made it clear that they were willing to sink even more big bucks into the Ted, that they were willing to privately finance a maglev to the stadium, and that they were willing to take the lead in redeveloping the area around the stadium.

Given that the city got the stadium for free and that the Braves had already dumped $130 million of their money into it, this situation was ripe for a deal with the team. Why not issue some revenue bonds (through the Fulton development authority, the Atlanta development authority, the AFCRA, etc.) and use some of the 28.5% of the hotel tax that is unrestricted?

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Why didn't he simply give them a timely response to their proposal?

The Braves had made it clear that they were willing to sink even more big bucks into the Ted, that they were willing to privately finance a maglev to the stadium, and that they were willing to take the lead in redeveloping the area around the stadium.

Given that the city got the stadium for free and that the Braves had already dumped $130 million of their money into it, this situation was ripe for a deal with the team. Why not issue some revenue bonds (through the Fulton development authority, the Atlanta development authority, the AFCRA, etc.) and use some of the 28.5% of the hotel tax that is unrestricted?

You make that statement as though bonds do not have to be repaid. That 28% currently goes the city's general fund. So you would still be taking money out of the general fund to build a stadium and I'm pretty sure that you were one of those that opposed the city spending money on stadiums with regard to the Falcons, when the city has so many other needs.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

You make that statement as though bonds do not have to be repaid. That 28% currently goes the city's general fund. So you would still be taking money out of the general fund to build a stadium and I'm pretty sure that you were one of those that opposed the city spending money on stadiums with regard to the Falcons, when the city has so many other needs.

One dollar is the same as another.

There didn't seem to be any issue in taking a couple of hundred million from the hotel tax to build a stadium for the Falcons.

The point is simply that if city of Atlanta hadn't been asleep at the switch they could have kept the Braves as well.

If the Falcons were a higher priority that's fine. But it's nonsense to claim that losing the Braves was a "smart play." The city just allowed itself to fall out of the loop in a very competitive environment.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by arjay57

One dollar is the same as another.

There didn't seem to be any issue in taking a couple of hundred million from the hotel tax to build a stadium for the Falcons.

The point is simply that if city of Atlanta hadn't been asleep at the switch they could have kept the Braves as well.

If the Falcons were a higher priority that's fine. But it's silly to claim that losing the Braves was a "smart play." The city just allowed itself to fall outside of the loop in a very competitive environment.

The only reason that specific funding was available to the Falcons is that the new stadium will remain on the GWCC campus and the GWCCA will have a stake in the new stadium like they do with the GA Dome right now. Under the current state law that established the tax, Reed and the COA/AFCRA have no say in how that funding is distributed. Even if Reed were to lobby the GWCCA to use the tax for a hypothetical new Braves stadium, it's likely the GWCCA would have shot that proposal down (probably due to fear of overextending themselves) and/or the Braves wouldn't want to play along. In the latter case, the Braves were seeking additional control of the area surrounding the Ted, and a new stadium on the GWCC campus wouldn't have allowed them that.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by arjay57

One dollar is the same as another.

There didn't seem to be any issue in taking a couple of hundred million from the hotel tax to build a stadium for the Falcons.

The point is simply that if city of Atlanta hadn't been asleep at the switch they could have kept the Braves as well.

If the Falcons were a higher priority that's fine. But it's silly to claim that losing the Braves was a "smart play." The city just allowed itself to fall outside of the loop in a very competitive environment.

First of all the city is not "taking" $200 million from the tax to build the Falcons stadium. As you just posted one page back, that portion of the tax is mandated by the general assembly to go to a stadium on GWCC property.

Can we please dismiss the notion that the city had much say in this deal. The extension of the tax was contingent on the stadium location. So by the Falcons staying downtown, the city not only keeps the Falcons in a location that supports numerous other tourist related businesses but they keep a healthy revenue stream coming into the general fund. This is a no brainer.

Again, it is curious that your stance has changed and you now approve of the city taking money from its general fund to build a stadium. That did not seem to be the case in discussing the Falcons stadium deal.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Gulch

Under the current state law that established the tax, Reed and the COA/AFCRA have no say in how that funding is distributed.

Only 39.3% of the hotel tax is committed to the Dome or its successor facility.

28.56% is unrestricted and can be used by the city as it pleases. Including bonds to upgrade Turner field. Note the presentation below from February of this year.

That's the same pot of money that is being used to finance the Falcons stadium bonds. While the hotel tax is set up so that 39% has to go to the Dome, it doesn't prohibit the use of the unrestricted 29% for Turner field.

As I say, if the city elected to prioritize the Falcons then so be it. But it's not accurate to claim that the identical funding was unavailable for the Braves.

The city could have kept the Braves but didn't respond to them in a timely manner or actively seek to engage them in negotiations.

In the ultra competitive world of pro sports franchises that won't do.




[/url][/IMG]

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

Again, it is curious that your stance has changed and you now approve of the city taking money from its general fund to build a stadium. That did not seem to be the case in discussing the Falcons stadium deal.

My stance hasn't changed it all: I'm opposed to using public money for the Falcons or the Braves stadium.

I'm just pointing out that it's not accurate to claim the hotel tax money could be used for the Falcons but not for the Braves. If the city was serious about keeping the Braves, they should have engaged in active and timely negotiations and brought to bear the same resources they used for the benefit of the Falcons.