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.
And exactly what part of a state mandated tax structure do you believe correlates with the city "bringing to bear" resources for the benefit of the Falcons?
To fund a new Braves stadium with the city's share of the hotel tax, the city would have to take from money that TODAY is going into its general fund and supporting some other city function. This simply does not equate to the dedicated revenue source BY STATE LAW used to fund the Falcons stadium.
Furthermore, that 28.5% would not be available to the city to use for ANYTHING without a new stadium on GWCC property because the extension of the hotel tax was contingent on a new stadium at that location. This is not an example of the city "prioritizing" the Falcons, this is the city supporting a no-brainer.
I thought the argument was that using the hotel tax for a stadium was a no-brainer since it is mostly paid by visitors rather than city of Atlanta residents.
If using 39% of it for a Falcons stadium is a good idea, then why isn't using 28% of it for a Braves stadium just as valid?
Of course that's only part of the conversation. If the city had really wanted to keep the Braves there are other ways to approach the financing issues.
Please be mindful that the Braves owner is from and lives in Colorado, he surely does not have vested interest in the City of Atlanta, like Arthur Blank who lives in Atlanta does. Liberty Media the owner of the Braves are clearly interested in revenue only. I think the owners of the team have more influence on what direction they want to take their teams.
I thought the argument was that using the hotel tax for a stadium was a no-brainer since it is mostly paid by visitors rather than city of Atlanta residents.
If using 39% of it for a Falcons stadium is a good idea, then why isn't using 28% of it for a Braves stadium just as valid?
Of course that's only part of the conversation. If the city had really wanted to keep the Braves there are other ways to approach the financing issues.
The 39% could only be used on the GWCC campus, that's the only aspect that makes it a good idea to me. I wouldn't want him to spend any more than required, leaving the 28% unrestricted to go to the actual needs of the city seems much better than giving it to the Braves.
If all the funds were unrestricted and the Mayor still went after the Falcons and not the Braves, I would put more blame on the Mayor.
Actually, in regards to the OP, I actually agree that the mayor is to blame partially for the Braves leaving. I agree with below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
Not all of the hotel tax is allocated to the Dome, however.
-- 39.3% goes to the Dome or its successor facility
-- 32.14% goes to promoting tourism, conventions, etc.
-- 28.56% is unrestricted and is available to the city to use as it wishes.
And remember, the city got the Ted for free, plus the Braves have already sunk $130 million of their own money into upgrading it.
If the city had wanted to keep the Braves and had devoted as much energy as it did to placating the Falcons, something could have been worked out.
Especially the bold. If Reed wanted them to stay they would have.
In regards to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLJR
I'm not sure how anyone could blame the City of Atlanta or Mayor Reed. CoA was negotiating in good faith with the Braves, who had made a bunch of demands that they knew were impossible for the CoA to accept, awhile at the same time going behind the CoA's back and began negotiating for the new site. The new site was announced before the CoA had an opportunity to respond to the Braves agreements.
The fact is, the Braves wanted total control (and total profit with no competition) from the surrounding developments around the stadium and the Cobb site provided this. Cobb also threw in paying for half of the costs. Financially, this is better than anything the Braves would get from anywhere else in the region, so the next step was to legitimatize the move outside the realm of purely financial (oh, this was best for our fans, etc). I don't think the move is good (outside financially) in that they're alienating the city (and fans) they share a name with, they're pushing further west, they're making the stadium harder to access, and no matter what they do it'll still be an Avalon-mall-faux-urban development at best, a strip mall at worst, in lieu of working with the city to develop the area around Turner Field into a truly unique, vibrant, urban experience.
However, there is blame that should go to CoA for not pushing the redevelopment initiatives in the past, although I wouldn't place these on Reed. Considering Reed took office in 2010 with a recession in full swing, there was very little he could do in terms of pushing for redeveloping the area. Balancing the city's budget, bringing the police force to full strength, and guiding the city / region out of the recession took precedent over other issues not to mention development, until recently, simply wasn't feasible under Reed's guidance.
The bold above would not have been difficult to accomplish for the Braves. A deal could have been worked out in order to give the Braves what they wanted at Turner Field - full control of the development. The city and county could have negotiated this with the Braves and instituted a buy-out via an MOU to include specific development ideas that the Braves could have incorporated into the area.
But this scenario is a shoulda-coulda-woulda scenario. Based on working for a private sector company in public sector housing and development, I know that it is MUCH easier for a public entity to spur growth in an area when they want to. Giving the task of the development is usually done via giving a developer (in this case the Braves) complete control but having guidelines implemented via an MOU. So the Braves could have gotten what they wanted if Reed had paid more attention to them. I actually do think it is a loss for the city itself. I hope Cobb can work it out but I wish that more would have been done to keep the Braves at Turner field with a deal for control of the venue and ownership of the parking lots surrounding the stadium to do with as they saw fit. Even some public support of the developments would have been beneficial IMO due to the nature of the development that they are now doing in Cobb, which is including housing and retail, something needed in the area surrounding Turner Field anyway.
FWIW, I also agree with the OP regarding the lack of redevelopment around football stadiums. Based on me going through this whole "community benefits" process, in a way, knowing that what my community wanted would not be included, I am concerned with what will actually happen in regards to infrastructure improvements wanted by Vine City and English Avenue along with the jobs components we were lobbying for, which were in turn totally removed from the so-called community benefits plan. The communities wanted vendor licenses for qualified community residents inside and outside the stadium (50 licenses only) and a management program set up with the GWCCA and new stadium to train qualified students in the community in operations and business management via an internship program. Neither of those, nor a commitment to complete all the many easily completed sidewalk, street, and code enforcement improvements/implementations were included in what is called a community benefits plan. So I highly doubt that any improvements in either community will be made.
Marietta St Corridor and Downtown were included in the plan as well, so I figure they will get the most of the non-allocated hotel/motel tax funds for development and not the areas that need them the most. I do hope the southern portion of downtown is the largest benefactor, but I doubt it. We shall see I guess.
Yes, the city could have thrown enough tax dollars at the Braves to get them to stay. But I am very glad that they did not.
Why is that? The city of Atlanta and Fulton County routinely issue hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds to keep and/or attract businesses and enterprises they consider beneficial.
For example, Invest Atlanta has approved bonds issues of $25 million for the aquarium, $60 million for the Yoo tower in Midtown, $63 million for Skyhouse (100 6th street), $13 million for the Human rights museum, $12 million to improve the old Macy's building, $30 million for Aerotropolis, and so on. The Fulton development authority has issued hundreds of millions in bonds for similar projects -- $120 million for Newell Rubbermaid, $90 million for Pulte, gazillions more for Georgia Tech, Morehouse, Invesco, Turner broadcasting, etc. Other metro counties do the same.
Yet nobody says a peep about any of this.
So why single out the Braves for no love, especially when in the same breath Atlantans are condemning them as traitors?
The bottom line is that the city simply didn't go after the Braves. If the they didn't want them, then so be it. But to claim it was because of lack of money, well....seems like we can scare it up for just about anything else we want.
Why is that? The city of Atlanta and Fulton County routinely issue hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds to keep and/or attract businesses and enterprises they consider beneficial.
For example, Invest Atlanta has approved bonds issues of $25 million for the aquarium, $60 million for the Yoo tower in Midtown, $63 million for Skyhouse (100 6th street), $13 million for the Human rights museum, $12 million to improve the old Macy's building, $30 million for Aerotropolis, and so on. The Fulton development authority has issued hundreds of millions in bonds for similar projects -- $120 million for Newell Rubbermaid, $90 million for Pulte, gazillions more for Georgia Tech, Morehouse, Invesco, Turner broadcasting, etc. Other metro counties do the same.
Yet nobody says a peep about any of this.
So why single out the Braves for no love, especially when in the same breath Atlantans are condemning them as traitors?
The bottom line is that the city simply didn't go after the Braves. If the they didn't want them, then so be it. But to claim it was because of lack of money, well....seems like we can scare it up for just about anything else we want.
I think both should be illegal but bonds are different from the cash the Braves are getting. The city is not building Skyhouse and then turning it over to a private company to profit (Like the Braves are getting). Invest Atlanta is just helping to back the bonds that the developer is paying 100% of.
Cobb Co. will lose money on this. Even with the Braves' own ambitous projections of $8m a year in tax benefit to the county and state it will take a long time to pay back the $300m + $92m bonds that they are giving the Braves. Meanwhile the COA will still benefit from people staying its hotels and renting its cars to go to Braves games. The COA will have more free money to work on infrastructure and can focus on attracting more developments like Atlantic Station that bring in $50m+ a year. Its win-win-lose (Braves, Atl, Cobb). So you are darn right that the city didn't want the Braves.
Why is that? The city of Atlanta and Fulton County routinely issue hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds to keep and/or attract businesses and enterprises they consider beneficial.
For example, Invest Atlanta has approved bonds issues of $25 million for the aquarium, $60 million for the Yoo tower in Midtown, $63 million for Skyhouse (100 6th street), $13 million for the Human rights museum, $12 million to improve the old Macy's building, $30 million for Aerotropolis, and so on. The Fulton development authority has issued hundreds of millions in bonds for similar projects -- $120 million for Newell Rubbermaid, $90 million for Pulte, gazillions more for Georgia Tech, Morehouse, Invesco, Turner broadcasting, etc. Other metro counties do the same.
Yet nobody says a peep about any of this.
So why single out the Braves for no love, especially when in the same breath Atlantans are condemning them as traitors?
The bottom line is that the city simply didn't go after the Braves. If the they didn't want them, then so be it. But to claim it was because of lack of money, well....seems like we can scare it up for just about anything else we want.
Have to totally agree here.
Many of you would be surprised at the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars given out to other organizations that do not contribute as much revenue to the city as does the Braves organization.
I really agree in that they (meaning the city and the development authority - Invest Atlanta) can pull hundreds of millions out of their a$$ when they want to for various entities. I personally don't understand how Reed could have let the Braves get away.
It would be great if he used some of that money to substantially improve the infrastructure of the city. I highly doubt that will happen though. IMO it seems that pockets are opened more readily for entities and organizations that are considered "friends" of the city. The Braves, due to wanting control (that they could have been given) probably rubbed someone the wrong way so were blacklisted in a way. I'm sure they will be happier dealing with Cobb County.
By the way, were there already plans to demolish Turner field?
It seems that when the story broke that the Braves were moving, the mayor almost immediately announced that the Ted would be torn down.
Because that is what you do with an unused stadium. Not sit there and rot and continue to bring down land values like it has been doing.
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.
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.
