\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/06/07/cash-poor-arena.html Just some stuff to think about the next time someone says that a "new downtown stadium" would be perfect for the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddenboy Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Plusses: Rich owner, Owner's intent to keep the team in town (= not using the threat of leaving as leverage against the taxpayers). Minuses: Weak tax base. On balance, I dont think we would have the problems cited in this article. Not saying Pegula would, or should, just finance 100% of it himself, like Stan Kroenke, but Pegs doesnt seem like the type to come crying for money every few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 The city literally wagered casino paying the bills. I don't think that will be the issue in Buffalo. TP and Jeremy Jacobs will build the stadium while the state and local governments will cover land and infrastructure costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Hmmmm ... From what we know it doesn't appear there are many similarities between the two scenarios. We shall see but this article is a big political hullabaloo, too much to get into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l< j Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I am very skeptical anytime someone raises the idea that a stadium or arena will fix a city's downtown problems, or provide an economic boost. But to draw any conclusions about what would happen in Buffalo from the Columbus experience would involve a pretty wild apples-to-oranges comparison. Casino operators bankrolled a state constitutional amendment some years back to allow legalized gambling in 4 cities in Ohio, and they sweetened the deal for voters by writing into the amendment language that funneled a chunk of gambling proceeds to public projects and entities. Well the promised proceeds never materialized. Gambling has become an increasingly crowded market space and the casino revenue projections were based on revenues from a point in time when a few midwestern casinos drew gamblers from across the midwest, because they were the only legal game in town. Ohio casinos will never deliver on the promises that the amendment backers made. So the article really doesn't say anything pertinent to the Buffalo situation except that regional governments should not look to any single source of income as a way to plug revenue holes, or underwrite magic bullet projects like arenas. It does say a lot about Ohio, however. kj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/06/07/cash-poor-arena.html Just some stuff to think about the next time someone says that a "new downtown stadium" would be perfect for the Bills. What does the fact that casino receipts are lagging have to do with the viability of a downtown stadium??? This is a problem with a funding mechanism, not a stadium issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 What does the fact that casino receipts are lagging have to do with the viability of a downtown stadium??? This is a problem with a funding mechanism, not a stadium issue. Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 The city literally wagered casino paying the bills. I don't think that will be the issue in Buffalo. TP and Jeremy Jacobs will build the stadium while the state and local governments will cover land and infrastructure costs.Sounds about right. Hopefully something is also built in for the skyway to be part of the construction/demo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Depends. Does the NFL help us cheat, so we can get butts downtown... Oh wait, we already come to the games win or lose. Maybe they can invent a new "Tuck Rule" to get us over the hump. Ah, scratch that too. Canadians like shopping and Old Navy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) Sounds about right. Hopefully something is also built in for the skyway to be part of the construction/demo.I have a friend who works in transportation who says the Skyway is an engineering marvel that is never going to be taken down because a) expense and b) the folks who built and designed said marvel aren't going to let their baby get torn down. C) is the cost of finding a new way to get traffic to Rt. 5. The cost of a tunnel, see a) Edited June 7, 2015 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not at the table Karlos Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I have a friend who works in transportation who days the Skyway is an engineering marvel that is never going to be taken down because a) expense and b) the folks who built and designed said marvel aren't going to let their baby get town down. C) is the cost of finding a new way to get traffic to Rt. 5. The cost of a tunnel, see a) I don't really have a problem with the skyway anymore. Canalside looks pretty cool with it there and what is it really hindering? Maybe a face lift would make it look better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I have a friend who works in transportation who days the Skyway is an engineering marvel that is never going to be taken down because a) expense and b) the folks who built and designed said marvel aren't going to let their baby get town down. C) is the cost of finding a new way to get traffic to Rt. 5. The cost of a tunnel, see a)I get the engineering side of it but any aesthetics comity is probably doing their best to get rid of it. I'm curious how much better it is having that extra 1/4 mile of eyesore to ending it at Ohio. I know I never take the skyway going to a game down there whether it's the sabres or bisons. It is convenient for getting out of the city though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I have a friend who works in transportation who days the Skyway is an engineering marvel that is never going to be taken down because a) expense and b) the folks who built and designed said marvel aren't going to let their baby get town down. C) is the cost of finding a new way to get traffic to Rt. 5. The cost of a tunnel, see a) Yeah it is an engineering marvel alright. Like building a gabled Cape Cod roof for a home in FLA or a flat roof for a home in New England. Like putting a log home right in the middle of a fire prone zone... Engineering marvel alright. :-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) I have a friend who works in transportation who days the Skyway is an engineering marvel that is never going to be taken down because a) expense and b) the folks who built and designed said marvel aren't going to let their baby get town down. C) is the cost of finding a new way to get traffic to Rt. 5. The cost of a tunnel, see a) There was a plan a decade or so ago that a tie in would be built between rte 5 around tifft and the 190 that would then eliminate the need for the skyway. I haven't heard anything about it in years. Until then, the skyway is going nowhere. Edited June 7, 2015 by LabattBlue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Yeah it is an engineering marvel alright. Like building a gabled Cape Cod roof for a home in FLA or a flat roof for a home in New England. Like putting a log home right in the middle of a fire prone zone... Engineering marvel alright. :-/ The marvel is that it's 110 feet tall in a high wind zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 The marvel is that it's 110 feet tall in a high wind zone. That really isn't a marvel. It's the vehicles on it in the high wind that should get the credit. That is what they make drawbridges for. Unlimited vertical clearance. :-P Anyway, speak of the devil... I just heard today on the Marine Band a sailing vessel calling for a drawbridge. Somebody asked how high the sailing vessel's mast was. They said it was a 110'. Is that for real? That would maybe not even clear The Skyway in BFLO... Or barely make it! That can't be right, the skipper had to be embellishing the height of the mast? "Mast envy." I wonder if they do decide to get rid of the Skyway if the sailboats on the ship canal (across from General Mills) will pitch holy heck if they had to wait for a moveable span... Or like mentioned, a tunnel and nobody complains. Yet, just imagine how expensive a tunnel would be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/06/07/cash-poor-arena.html Just some stuff to think about the next time someone says that a "new downtown stadium" would be perfect for the Bills. I'd love a downtown stadium but not because it would be any "economic benefit" to the downtown area. However, something akin to Patriot Place in OP or another suburb would also be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts