NE2: Northeast Sports Arena Financing Act (cinyc halp)

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

sponsor: pikachu

mr governor, you have 36 hours to advocate for this bill

[Clark Kent]

I like this idea. It could save a lot of money by limiting the amount that the government pays.

[DemPGH]

Even if the public would want to help? I don't know, I see a lot of potential economic stimulation resulting from new stadiums, which these days are more all-purpose. I may offer an amendment to raise the 10% a little later.

[Lincoln Republican]

I do agree in principle with the intent of this bill.

There is no way that sports franchises worth multi millions of dollars and whose sports team members are earning multi millions of dollars a season should be financed by the taxpayers for an arena used primarily by them.

I do believe as well, however, that the public should benefit from this type of facility and that some kind of cost sharing and profit sharing arrangement should be negotiated.

As to cost overruns, there is already a law in place in the Northeast, ironically called the Winfield Doctrine, that mandates that any cost overruns are the responsibility of the companies who made the quote for construction.  

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=155810.msg3350405#msg3350405

This is a bill that I wrote some time ago, and that was passed by the Northeast Assembly.

A cost and benefit analysis should be undertaken by the principal beneficiaries and occupants of the facility, in order to determine a fair arrangement where all would benefit.

What should be a principle underlying any negotiations should be that the tax payers are not left holding that bag for any extra costs, in other words, it should be a net benefit to the region and to the taxpayers, and not a net cost.

[pikachu]

Glad to see there's support for this. So, yeah, my rationale for this is that the primary tenants of these are from multi-billion dollar companies, and there is no reason that they shouldn't have the major brunt of the cost when it comes to financing these things. I do agree with PGH that there is some public utility from these projects, which is why I do allow some of it to be financed by the public, and I'd be open to an increase if it isn't particularly large.

Also, thanks Winfield, for pointing out the preexisting law on cost overruns. My knowledge of Northeast law still needs some improvement...

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i like the idea. what about attacking the other end? like guaranteeing the municipality gets as high a percentage of revenue as it contributed to construction, for example?

[pikachu]

i like the idea. what about attacking the other end? like guaranteeing the municipality gets as high a percentage of revenue as it contributed to construction, for example?

I like this idea, so I'll put in the amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was my idea, or something like it (willing to deal), but I like evergreen's suggestion too.

New, all-purpose stadiums can also raise market value. A lot of the old stadiums were seriously dumps, like Three Rivers and the Vet and the one in Cincinnati. The Pontiac Silverdome over time became a disaster, I mean an eyesore, and sold for only like 500,000 dollars or something a few years ago. The stadium the Vikings used to play in had the roof collapse back in 2010, so I guess in addition to seeing a lot of value to sports teams and having stadiums that can host them (as well as support technology), I see community benefit as well.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

dempgh, are you formally proposing that or should we hold a final vote on the governor's revised bill?

[pikachu]

If that is an amedment, I'd prefer a smaller %. (Quibbling over semantics, I know.)

[DemPGH]

dempgh, are you formally proposing that or should we hold a final vote on the governor's revised bill?

Sorry! Yes, I'm formally proposing that.

If that is an amedment, I'd prefer a smaller %. (Quibbling over semantics, I know.)

Okay, I think the big thing is that the public would have some say via a referendum. If the public doesn't want tax money spent on stadiums, then that's hard to argue with. But if they're okay with it, then I think it should go ahead.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

we'll hold a vote on dempgh's amendment then:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

you have 48 hours, representatives

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

aye

[Clark Kent]

Aye

[pikachu]

dempgh, are you formally proposing that or should we hold a final vote on the governor's revised bill?

Sorry! Yes, I'm formally proposing that.

If that is an amedment, I'd prefer a smaller %. (Quibbling over semantics, I know.)

Okay, I think the big thing is that the public would have some say via a referendum. If the public doesn't want tax money spent on stadiums, then that's hard to argue with. But if they're okay with it, then I think it should go ahead.

I'm for the referendum part. We can keep that after the vote.

[Lincoln Republican]

Aye

[DemPGH]

Yes.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

Aye

[pikachu]

Amendment looks like it passed. Even if the public funding percentage os a bit high for my tastes, i'd be happy to sign this version.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i think this needs to be reintroduced in the new assembly, actually, but i'm not sure

if not - the amendment passes 5-0

[cinyc]

i think this needs to be reintroduced in the new assembly, actually, but i'm not sure

if not - the amendment passes 5-0

I'm not sure about the new rules.  Under the old rules, everything died when the Assembly went out of session, including legislation in the proposed legislation thread.  Now, IIRC, the proposed legislation thread continues in order when the new Assembly takes over.

To be safe, it probably should be reintroduced in the new Assembly, as amended.  The amendment passed before the old Assembly went out of session.