Cubs prop vote will decide if history, economic benefits worth the price
Cubs Plaza View
Wrigleyville West concept artwork
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
27 comments:
Rules of Conduct
Happening Now...
-
Friday 5/24/2013
-
Thursday 5/23/2013
-
Carroll: Next generation learning brings lecture-free approach to college classrooms
Guest Commentary by Michael Carroll
-
Kerpen: Government can't be trusted with our health
Guest commentary by Phil Kerpen
-
Lessons to be learned from Art Wagner?
By Mark Heller, Tribune
-
Scarp: Substance, not form, at heart of petition rights
By Mark Scarp, contributing columnist
-
Brownie Points: Enigma of Upton on full display
By Jerry Brown, contributing columnist
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
DSnider4 posted at 12:15 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Kammrath and his co-horts are the ones responsible for those misleading anti-420 campaign signs. They use the word "bailout" in a shameful attempt to deceive and play on what they must perceive as the ignorance of the voters. Of course this has NOTHING to do with a bailout of any kind and I hope everyone knows it. And then to state that $250 million is the cost of the project is another outrage. These are not just misleading signs, they are blatant lies.
Rich posted at 1:11 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Actually it is about the same as a bailout tax money going to a private corporation and the $99 million cap is not written down and given how such things usually work when they aren't $250 million is a bit conservative as an estimate.
DSnider4 posted at 2:12 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
No, actually it's not the same as a bailout and $250 million is not a conservative estimate. It is not an estimate at all. It's a flat out lie. I don't think the voters are as ignorant as he assumes. He uses "bailout" because it has emotionally charged connotations in this election and he hopes to capitalize on that - even if he has to lie and trick people to do it.
MesaAZGuy posted at 2:14 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Rich, not one cent of the $99 million (which is written down all over the place and has been said for ages now), is going to the Cubs. Please explain to me how this would be a bailout?
The signs are a flat out lie.
Rich posted at 2:33 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Actually it's all going to the Cubs, who else is getting it? And $99 million is a PR figure, there is no written agreement that enforces it. And, as I said, as such things go, cost overruns and such, $250 million is a conservative estimate when one begins with a non-contractual cap of $99 million. It's called a politician's count.
votenomesa posted at 2:55 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Vote no on this $99 million giveaway to a billionaire owner. Nothing wrong with HoHoKam. Owner just wants to squeeze money from Mesa to support his inflated ego.
DSnider4 posted at 4:41 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
The millionaire or billionaire status of the Cubs owner is irrelevant to this vote. The question is whether or not the benefits the Cubs bring to Mesa are greater than the costs needed to keep them. I will vote YES on Prop 420 because Mesa will be in much worse shape if the Cubs leave. How will the City replace the out-of-state spending dollars that are literally poured into its economy every spring? How will the price of your home be affected when, Cubs fans and snowbirds with 2nd homes here start selling them -- while new retirees retire to Florida and buy new homes there (instead of Mesa)? What will happen to all the sales taxes, real estate taxes, and state income taxes generated and paid by Cubs fans who have moved here - and live here year around - when they move to Florida. Keep in mind that Cubs fans who are residents of Mesa are a current year-around source of revenue to the city that will dry up forever if the Cubs leave. And that is money that is never included in the economic impact studies that the Cubs critics incorrectly say are too high.
Rich posted at 6:03 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Oh right, the Cubs boost a small seasonal segment of economy for Mesa. Get real, you're just subsidizing a billionaire, and probably paid to blog for him. And abandoning one part of your city, which will become like Fiesta, to steal ball fields, a lake and a golf course from the people of Mesa. Mesa would be one 'H' of a lot better off had the subsidy, if you really feel you have to give them, been plowed into the Fiesta area instead of wasted at Riverview. These developers can afford a lot of PR, over and under the table, to grab hold of the money you need to fund what you do need, and what has already been cut back. The Cubs have plenty, Mesa is cutting back on services. Stop trying to convince people to hurt themselves to fund your boss. Mesa has done it before, and it hasn't worked out well, stop trying to con them again, the can't really afford it.
MesaAZGuy posted at 7:43 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Say it once and you're un-informed. Say it twice and you are lying. The council, mayor, Chicago Cubs, and campaign have all said numerous times the cap is $84 million and $15 million and the Cubs are responsible for everything.
As I said above-the Cubs will not OWN anything that was paid for by the $99 million so how can this possibly be a bailout or subsidy. Please explain that to me.
Rich posted at 9:15 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
"The council, mayor, Chicago Cubs, and campaign have all said numerous times the cap is $84 million and $15 million and the Cubs are responsible for everything."
Everybody but the Cubs changes before it's built, to 'say' it isn't worth much, a contractual obligation is one thing, saying it is well, saying it, like a campaign promise. Political arithmetic makes $250 million more likely. After all, to quote Samuel Goldwyn, "An oral agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on.
And the Cubs are 'responsible' for everything. No they 'get' everything. They will not be responsible for the neighborhoods the destroy in Mesa, and n Tempe as well. They won't find and finance new softball fields, a new lake, a new park, a new golf course. They will just count up the tax money and pocket it. And being a private corporation, you can call it a subsidy if you like, if it makes you feel better, but in the end all it is is giving the money that the government has taken from the people of Mesa and spending it on a private corporation instead of the services we have a city to provide. If Mesa has $99 million to blow on the Cubs, there are services they need to restore first, and if they still have the money, they need to cut taxes.
Mesatoo posted at 9:16 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
This is a poor idea at a terrible time. Cubs want a new stadium but at the same time say they will help find another team for the existing Hohokam stadium. If it's good enough for another team, then why isn't it adequate for the Cubs? This is a "made up" problem and there is no reason the Cuns NEED to leave or change stadiums. They just want something new at the expense of Mesa. And in addition to the new stadium, let's throw in cheap retail space that they won't have to pay property taxes on etc.
Secondly, no details are included in the proposition wording so the amounts CAN be changed at whim and everything is non-binding on the Cubs. Wouldn't most people want agreements like that but I guess only a select group actually get them.
Leave the money in the enterprise fund and spend it on improving the utility infrastructure which benefits the tax payers and utility payers of Mesa.
This is wrong in so many ways. Just vote NO.
DSnider4 posted at 10:20 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Like I said at the top, the anti-Prop 420 signs are lies. Lies and deception are the only way they can even come close in this vote... mislead everyone. Why does anyone even quote Kammrath after those signs started popping up? Let him debate the Mayor again, so Smith can mop the floor with the homely sleeze-bag one more time.
wdgnas posted at 5:34 am on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
Kammrath agrees with Mesa that all of Arizona benefits from the Cubs, but he said the state should pay for more of the cost.
how is the state going to afford to do this?
The Cubs would likely invest millions in Wrigleyville West, Lufrano said.
Non-binding agreements between the city and the Cubs caps Mesa's cost at $99 million, leaving the Cubs to pay for additional expenses or upgrades.
how much will the cubs invest in wrigleyville west? if the deal is so good, why is the agreement NON-BINDING?
cb_mesa posted at 8:30 am on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
Keeping the Cubs in Mesa, will help to keep Mesa as a viable location for retirees, as more and more communities around the state and the valley have lower priced homes, it is important that Mesa stay in the game, literally. However, I believe that those that could care less about the future, mainly those that may have even found Mesa, through the cubs are the last to support this measure.
This is a no brainer, invest in something that will bring money and attention back into your city or send a clear message that progress is something that we want no part of.
Butters posted at 9:19 am on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
DSnider4 and MesaAzGuy, please explain to us Mesa citizens, just who is going to pay for the land, including relocation and construction costs, that will be lost at Riverview, specifically, the ballfields, lake and golf course that are NOW being used and enjoyed by the public? This stinker of a deal, calls for the cubs to LEASE the land. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall reading that the Cubs will be the ones paying for the public amenities that will be lost at Riverview park.
I thought Hawker and the old regime was bad when it came to giving away the farm, but lo and behold, Smith has picked right up where Hawker left off. What has Smith done for Mesa so far? Oh yeah, he promoted and got his secondary property tax. I guess I shouldn't knock the brainstormer who wants to waste $10 million of unspent bond money to narrow Southern. I think his plan is called the "Let's Drive A Stake Through Fiesta Mall's Heart" and kill it once and for all.
The city's infrastructure is falling apart, services have been cut, including and especially to police and fire. But that's okay, let's just give more corporate welfare to a billionaire family who owns a losing baseball team that hasn't been to the World Series in over a hundred years.
DSnider4 and MesaAzGuy, stop labeling others as liars and answer my questions with HONEST FACTS, instead of spouting your pro Cubs scripted propaganda.
DSnider4 posted at 12:53 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
And the opposition's plan is to "drive a stake through the heart and soul of Mesa" - by voting the Cubs out. The honest facts have been available for everyone to see for quite some time.
You can play the childish game of calling the Cubs losers all you want. The important thing to know about the Cubs is that they are the dominant spring training draw in all of Major League Baseball, not just the Cactus League.
Don't blow it, Mesa. Vote YES!
Rich posted at 3:32 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
If Mesa was safe, efficient, hassle free with good solid education, they'd be a lot better off than they would keeping the Cubs. Unfortunately they are none of those things, they cut safety services, are wasteful spenders and are constantly in everyone's face, especially business owners, as well as being a poster child for 50th out of 50 in education. Perhaps they could find a better use for the money than cutting recreation for everyone and building a stadium for a month's use yearly?
Butters posted at 4:53 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
DSnider4, please explain to us Mesa citizens, just who is going to pay for the new land to replace what is lost at Riverview, including relocation and construction costs, specially, the softball fields, lake and golf course that are NOW being used and enjoyed by the public? Where does it state in this deal PUBLIC LAND will be replaced at the expense of the Cubs? Let me answer the question for you and also for MesaAzGuy, who is Smith's propaganda czar. This is Smith and Brady trying to pull a fast one on the voters. The Cuibs are NOT worth givng up public land just to appease their billionaire owner. The Cubs will NOT have to replace or buy the land. Smith and Brady got around that by proposing a LEASE. It's time to fire Brady and recall Smith. I'm sick of this nonsense. As Rich pointed out, it would be one thing if the city were meeting the basic needs of the citizens by properly funding police, fire, parks and recreation and several other needed departments, but they are not. The city is spread too thin with their financial obligations. It's time for the government to provide the basic services for its citzens the way they are suppose to be, not ballparks for megabillionaire baseball team owners. Let me remind you, Snider, that the lands are PUBLIC LANDS and the money the megabillionaires want to use to build the new stadium and practice facilities with are PUBLIC FUNDS.
Snider, do you even live in Mesa? If not, M.Y.O.B..
MesaAzGuy, Smith's backside kissing little propaganda czar, if the Cubs don't get Riverview for a new stadium, the sky will not fall, the sun will continue to shine and life will go on. If the Cubs want to leave then let them. I know we can attract another team to use Hohokam. It's about time the city council used TAXPAYER money to clean up this city and get back on track with providing important and needed city services.
The money obtained from selling the land in Pinal County would go a long way towards providing funding for city services while we ride out the bad economy. Gee whiz, why didn't Smith think of doing that before? He stated he was a real whiz kid with business when running for mayor. Too bad it was nothing more than a bunch of bull hype. The city should also look into selling the land where the former city housing project sits, in addition to the land it wasted taxpayer money to acquire for the purpose of giving another business person corporate welfare so he could build his shrine of a hardware store.
I've got a strong feeling that before there will ever be a new stadium at Riverview, there will be a legal challenge brought on by the Goldwater Institute, on behalf of one or more of Mesa's citizens. This madness has got to stop. We, whether as a city or private citizens, can no longer afford to subsidize these projects for the wealthy. I'm not against business of any kind and encourage free enterprise, but at the expense and risk of the business owners, not us taxpayers. We are not the bank. Let them go get financing or put up their own money in full to finance their business ventures that make them wealthy because THAT'S the American Way.
One last thing...FIRE Brady and RECALL Smith. They are doing a horrible job of managing this city and its assets.
DSnider4 posted at 6:44 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
I am indeed a Mesa resident . I am opposed to the 2 false and misleading anti-420 campaign signs. Tired of the lies. Tired of hearing about how rich the Cubs owners are - which has nothing to do with the issue. Tired of your class warfare tactics. Tired of hearing about people's sudden interest in the Pinal County land. Where was all the concern about the land before the Cubs deal? Where were all your big ideas then? Sell the land to hire more police? How will you pay their salaries next year or the year after that? Raising taxes, that's how. Or maybe you could coax the Cubs into coming back.
How are the millions and millions of out-of-state dollars that get injected directly into our economy goint to be replaced??? By bring the Astros into Hohokam?
Many of the people who are against keeping the Cubs in Mesa started out by saying they'd vote for it when they were assured they wouldn't be paying higher sales or real estate taxes. That was taken care of. Then they said they'd vote for keeping the Cubs if they knew where the site was going to be and if they knew what it might look like. That was taken care of too.
These are all phoney concerns as are the new ones about blank checks, no caps, and disappearing public lands. Everything is a conspiracy I guess. I suppose Smith, the Trillionaire Cubs owner and I guess Brady now are all going to wind up on some island with $250 million bucks in their pockets.... or just... a blank check...
Butters posted at 7:22 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
DSnider4, you're tired of the lies? Good, then I guess you're not happy that Smith, Brady and the Cubs misled the citizens of Mesa when they stated the Cubs would be BUYING land for a new stadium. It appears that you're not the slightest bit suspiscious that this deal to ROB PUBLIC LANDS from the citizens came together at the last minute. To deprive the citizens of the use of public land already developed with a nice lake, golf course and softball fields is NOT an acceptable solution in order to provide the Cubs with corporate welfare. I'm sorry, but basic government does NOT include bankrolling sports teams of any kind. This madness needs to stop. If the Cubs are such a great team, why aren't they paying for their own stadium? They are after all, a FOR PROFIT corporation. GET REAL! Mesa needs to TAKE CARE OF ITS OWN and CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME.
As for the money from the land sales, where were you when I've run my mouth many times about the city selling surplus land holdings in order to use the money to subsidize the city's budget until the economy improved? It's not just the land in Pinal County that should be sold, but ALL the land the city aquired when they illegally tried to bankroll a hardware store, in additon to the public housing that has been boarded up and just sits. Millions of TAXPAYER DOLLARS were misspent to acquire that water farm, as well as the property downtown that the hardwarer guy was going to get for a sweatheart deal had Mr. Bailey not fought the attempted illegal taking of his land.
I love baseball. I don't love watching our hard earned money being spent to subsidize a billionaire's lousy underperforming and overpaid baseball team. I also don't want to see our city subsidizing the lodging and eateries in Scottsdale and Tempe if a stadium is built at Riverview and that's exactly what will happen if the stadium is built.
snipes posted at 7:37 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
MesaAzGuy has a long and well-established reputation for blog lying and being Mayor Smith's propaganda lapdog--that almost goes without saying. But who is this new b.s. artist, DSnider4? While MesaAzGuy typically averages better than an overt lie per paragraph, DSnider manages multiple lies per sentence!
Supposedly $15-million is the cost of infrastructure improvements to accommodate the $84-million stadium giveaway. Why was the $15-million number not mentioned from the start. Instead it was tagged on near the end, just as this project has grown for $50M to $84M to $99M. Spot a trend?
Moreover, in the past scam-o-rama deal known as the "Waveyard" wet dream, the problem of relocating the four Ball Fields came up and was promptly swept under the rug. At that time it was estimated to take $10-million just to buy some land in west Mesa PLUS an additional $5-million to build the fields.
Two Problems:
1) The $10-million for land was a woefully inadequate amount. In fact, the city was never able to identify any site at that price. In fact, most the counter offers came in at DOUBLE that....i.e. $20-million!
2) How is it that now, supposedly the $15-million will pay for the property, and new ballfields, but also--as the article says--"roads, water lines and improving the existing Riverview". So how is it possible that previously$15-million was about $10-million SHORT to replace the ball fields, but suddenly now it is more than enough to pay for the ball fields and all the other infrastructure improvement, and to improve the park to boot?
Sounds like fantasy-land financing.
Something that the City of Mesa is famous for.
DSnider4 posted at 9:21 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
The Mayor has been out meeting people face to face in various town halls and other appearances to explain and debate why he and the entire city council is behind keeping the Cubs. The opposition on the other hand, hides behind misleading signs.... outright lies about bailouts and $250 million dollar costs.
forkedlift1 posted at 2:33 am on Mon, Oct 25, 2010.
DSnider4
What do you know about relocation of the ballfields? What sites are they looking into?
Butters posted at 7:48 am on Mon, Oct 25, 2010.
The only proposal that I have heard in regards to relocating the ballfields, is to move them to Red Mountain, where there are already existing ballfields. That proposal is not acceptable. This stinkaroonie of a deal is being put together in a hurry and we are just not getting enough of the right information. Don't look for DSnider4 to give honest answers about the relocation of the ballfields because he just doesn't know and he most likely doesn't care. He just wants the new stadium at any price, regardless of what it costs us citizens in terms of funding and loss of use for the amenities already at Riverview Park.
If the entire council supports this bad deal, then perhaps they should be considering another line of work when their term expires. We need council members who are going to look out for the needs of the citizens, not billionaire out of towners looking for handouts. These corporate welfare giveaways have gotten out of control and are entirely too costly to citizens suffering severe financial hardships due to the great depression, part deux.
Mayor Smith, it's obvious that you still want to play the part of a developer and that's fine. Please resign so that we citizens can chose a real mayor who is going to address the real problems this city has, rather than to suck up to your out of town friends. While runing for office you made a lot of promises, but due to a severe lapse in memory and character, you seem to have forgotten all about that.
forkedlift1 posted at 12:49 pm on Mon, Oct 25, 2010.
Where ARE you, DSnider4?? Do YOU have an answer to my question? It's imperative that those ballfields be relocated to a location in west Mesa at fair market value of the current ballfield complex.
It's a week before the election. Has the city found a site that complies with Department of Interior requirements since the existing ballfield complex was funded by LWCF funds from the Dept. of Interior?
Patriot posted at 6:38 pm on Tue, Oct 26, 2010.
VOTE NO AGAINST PROP 420.
mrfixer123 posted at 7:31 am on Thu, Oct 28, 2010.
Hey MesaAZguy and Dsnider4 why don't you just come right out and say "We have to pass 420 so we'll know what's in it" .... Sound familiar?? This is just another one of those slight of hand slimy deals Mayor Smith and his cronies are becoming famous for. The Cubs need to build their own stadium if they want it. Lord knows they've got more money than Mesa. I'll tell you I sent my ballot in with a NO on it.