Stadium notes from all over

The week is off to a slow start, stadium-shenanigans-wise, but a few items have begun to trickle across the transom:

  • The forever-simmering Houston Dynamo stadium controversy has become a major issue in the city’s mayoral runoff, with Gene Locke charging that his opponent, Annise Parker, would drive the team out of town by refusing to contribute to a new soccer stadium. A Parker spokesperson told the Houston Chronicle: “The city has already done its part by contributing the land to the project. Especially in tough economic times like we are facing now, the city can’t afford expensive, new projects.”
  • The state of New Hampshire has capped the amount of rooms-and-meals taxes that it distributes to cities — which is a problem for Manchester, which is paying off its arena bonds with those taxes. Moody’s has already downgraded the bonds to junk status, and they could be at risk of default — something that Manchester, even though it’s not technically on the hook for bond payments, doubtless wants to avoid. Right now, it looks like the city and the state are going to beat each other up over who should be responsible for the shortfall — sound familiar?
  • A poll of Saskatchewan residents on the future of Mosaic Stadium found that 37.4% say the Roughriders‘ home be replaced by a domed stadium, 11.9% think it should be replaced by a non-domed stadium, 18.1% think it should be renovated, and and 32.6% say it should be left alone. The headline that the Regina Leader-Post (which conducted the poll) used on this was “Most Saskatchewan residents believe Mosaic Stadium should be replaced or improved,” though they could have just as easily said “Most Saskatchewan residents don’t believe Mosaic Stadium should be replaced.” It doesn’t look like the poll went into funding specifics, though it is reported that “eighty per cent say various levels of government should foot at least part of the bill.” (The tip, presumably.)
Share this post:

5 comments on “Stadium notes from all over

  1. Posted this in the LA stadium thread too, but another piece of news out of San Diego today. The long stalled stadium hunt in the city itself was revived today with word the team and city have met and a downtown San Diego stadium is back on the table east of PETCO Park. It appears that the city leaders are solidly behind this idea so far as is the team. Undoubtedly this is a by product of the LA stadium moving forward last month.

  2. Apparently, Parker – the career politican who’s now spent 6 years as City Controller – started bashing the stadium when she said in her paid tv ad that she won’t fund any new stadium. She appears to have forgotten over those 12 years that in the deal, the city WON’T spend anything on it – investors and the county will. She just wants conservative people to overlook that she’s the openly gay candidate and see her as a fiscal conservative instead. Parker is just another unethical, lying politician who will say whatever it takes to get into office.

  3. The city of Houston is kicking in tax-increment financing, no? That’s real money, even if it’s only a few million dollars.

  4. A few notes from Sacramento, while you’re up:

    The problem is that building downtown will cost AT LEAST 50% more than building next to the current arena. This point is even more potent when you consider the existing arena is about 3 miles from downtown, and is adjacent to a planned light-rail line (not to mention the 3 or so overpasses and multi-lane roads they JUST BUILT for the existing arena).

    If there’s a TIF, I will oppose it. Period.

Comments are closed.