Crew Owners 'Clear Hurdle' on Austin Move (San Antonio, Columbus: rent, university)

[Soccernerd]

The Austin City Council approved a detailed plan for a soccer stadium at McKalla place. Do you think the Columbus Crew will move to Austin? Do you think that it’s appropriate that a stadium could be built on city-owned land?

[Austin97]

considering that the stadium will be owned by the city, why wouldnt that be ok?

[Austinite101]

I think it's wonderful the city council finally approved the deal. The deal is very favorable to the city and it seems the risk to tax payers is minimal.

The opposition to this project primarily came from Columbus, Ohio of course. I feel sorry for them that their team might move out, but that type of thing happens. There's no reason Austin should turn down a team that literally fell into our laps simply because another city is on the losing end. I'm glad the majority of the Austin City Council were pragmatic and voted yes.

Although, it's pretty pathetic of CM Leslie Pool that she cares more about the opinions of residents in a city 1,000 miles away. That stunt she pulled by visiting Columbus was embarrassing and didn't play over well here in Austin. But to each their own.

[atxcio]

Although it was ugly to watch this go through the city council, the deal ended up being quite groundbreaking. I don't think a pro sports franchise has ever been forced to pay so much for the privilege of relocating to a city. Most cities would pony up the taxpayer money to build a stadium and let them use the land for free. Heck, 80 miles down the road San Antonio would have done that.

Instead, we're not paying any taxpayer money to build a stadium, and they are giving it to the city. And then paying something like $500K/yr rent to use the stadium they paid for. Plus affordable housing, paying for a rail station, and a very long list of other concessions.

I wonder if this will change how other such deals are handled in highly desirable cities. And I wonder what the Amazon HQ2 people will think...

[Austinite101]

Originally Posted by atxcio

Although it was ugly to watch this go through the city council, the deal ended up being quite groundbreaking. I don't think a pro sports franchise has ever been forced to pay so much for the privilege of relocating to a city. Most metros would pony up the taxpayer money to build a stadium and let them use the land for free. Heck, 80 miles down the road San Antonio would have done that.

Instead, we're not paying any taxpayer money for the stadium, and they are giving it to the city. And then paying something like $500K/yr rent to use the stadium they paid for. Plus affordable housing, paying for a rail station, and a very long list of other concessions.

I wonder if this will change how other such deals are handled in highly desirable cities. And I wonder what the Amazon HQ2 people will think...

That's EXACTLY what my first thoughts were seeing how nitty gritty the Austin City Council was in extracting concessions from Precourt. I have to imagine that, if Austin is still a serious contender for Amazon HQ2, Amazon watched those council meetings wondering if they should strike Austin from consideration. It took nearly a full year of tense deal making for a $200 million stadium. I can't imagine what it would look like if Amazon came to Austin looking to strike a deal. The negotiations would be white hot.

[Snowpacked]

There are numerous sites that are better suited for this. The UT soccer field or football stadium could be used. If they can host games now with the current infrastructure they can host soccer too. Sure scheduling is a concern, but not a show stopper. It is soccer and can be played on week nights as it is now.
Why waste money and resources on something that may fail? It is embarrassing that we so determined to keep industries propped up over common sense solutions.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Snowpacked

There are numerous sites that are better suited for this. The UT soccer field or football stadium could be used. If they can host games now with the current infrastructure they can host soccer too. Sure scheduling is a concern, but not a show stopper. It is soccer and can be played on week nights as it is now.
Why waste money and resources on something that may fail? It is embarrassing that we so determined to keep industries propped up over common sense solutions.

UT will 100% not allow a private pro sports group to use their stadiums. It is ridiculous to suggest that as an option.

Given that, where else would be better?

McKalla is a great location. Huge hispanic community. Right on the rail line. Population density is reasonably high over there. Huge warehouse district and one of the last to gentrify central areas.

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by Austin97

UT will 100% not allow a private pro sports group to use their stadiums. It is ridiculous to suggest that as an option.

Given that, where else would be better?

McKalla is a great location. Huge hispanic community. Right on the rail line. Population density is reasonably high over there. Huge warehouse district and one of the last to gentrify central areas.

This. Even if the soccer team isn't a huge draw, I think it will draw concerts and other events to the area, not to mention the other development that will come with it.

I find it ironic that all these developers suddenly came out of the woodwork with plans like, "Wait, we were going to do XYZ with that land." Where were all those developers 10 years ago?

[Snowpacked]

Originally Posted by Austin97

UT will 100% not allow a private pro sports group to use their stadiums. It is ridiculous to suggest that as an option.

Given that, where else would be better?

McKalla is a great location. Huge hispanic community. Right on the rail line. Population density is reasonably high over there. Huge warehouse district and one of the last to gentrify central areas.

That is odd since UT is a public university. They should have limited say on what happens on the property they are the caregivers of. But we know that money trumps logic.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by Snowpacked

That is odd since UT is a public university. They should have limited say on what happens on the property they are the caregivers of. But we know that money trumps logic.

UT is a STATE property. This is a CITY issue. The UT properties are all about what is good for the university system, whereas the city properties are used for what is good for the city. Those are not always the same. The delineation is perfectly logical.